Astronomy is observational, physics is experimental and so it was more
Galileo than anyone else. I have published papers on the Big Bang but I
must say I do not know how all came into being. I am more at easy with
experimental science rather than forensic science. Delbruck and
Schrodinger paved the way for the double helix, which is fundamental to
making biology more like physics. Moorad
From: george murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Moorad Alexanian <email@example.com>
Cc: Jonathan Clarke <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: preposterous
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> I have always said that physics is the prototype of science and I do not
>> know of any reasonable argument against that. The proof of that is the
>> historical order in which the different sciences achieved maturity.
>> biology, historical biology, etc. without the experimental scientific
>> developed by the likes of Kepler, Newton, Galileo, etc. By knowing what
>> science is, then we are in a position to know what it is not. For
>> it is self-evident to me that the fundamental question of origins is not
>> scientific question, the answer lies outside of science. It is foolish to
>> attempt to find a theory for it. I never said that other sciences
>> teach physicists something new. But it is true that the people who did
>> things in biology were physicists, viz., Schrodinger, Delbruck, etc.
> 1) Your historical argument is problematic. It is really
>which came first as a science
>able to give any really precise predictions. That gave a great deal of
>to physics, which has now of course pretty much subsumed astronomy. But
>Copernicus & Kepler, Newton would have had a lot tougher time of it.
> 2) What is "the fundamental question of origins"? If it's really
>fundamental - i.e., Why is there something rather than nothing? - then it's
>indeed beyond science. But is the origin of a star or of planetary systems
>outside astrophysics? Doesn't standard big bang theory do a pretty good
>explaining the origin of light nuclei? Darwin & Wallace's theory may not
>able to explain the origin of species with the kind of precision that we
>predicting ~25% He-4 but that doesn't mean that it says nothing at all.
> 3) You've been pretty selective in listing "the people who did big
>things in biology", leaving out a few minor players like Mendel, Darwin,
>Wallace, Morgan, &c. Of course if "did big things" means "bringing the
>of physics to biology" then your statement is tautologous.
>George L. Murphy
>"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 15:14:33 EDT