I can't claim any expertise in the area, but I do look through every
issue of _Science_. Seems to me that there are still unanswered questions
about superconductivity. Further, a proper explanation involves getting
things right at the edges of quantum theory, but there seem to be new
problems in quantum chromodynamics, not to go on to M theory and strings.
Beyond these holes, there is a further problem that I don't find
mentioned in contemporary discussions. About the turn of the last
century, Poincare' cited the work of Paul Koenigs to show that for every
set of data meeting the least action principle, there are an infinite
number of possible mechanical models. From this it follows that, for any
set of scientific data, there are an infinite number of
logico-mathematical models--not to mention the auxiliary assumptions
which accompany the formalizations. If I add in your statement that "the
origin question is not a scientific question," how will you get an
impossibility proof in the face of the infinite number of potential
theories? Doesn't this sound like a vain hope?
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:02:30 -0400 Moorad Alexanian
> I am referring to a "complete theory of the origin of man." I for
> believe that the origin question is not a scientific question so I
> with you that there is no complete theory of the origin of man.
> certainly there is, almost, a complete theory of superconductivity.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Evolution and the Image of god
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:26:08 -0400 "Moorad
> > Alexanian<email@example.com>" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Evolutionary theory is supposed to be a complete theory of the
> > > of man.
> > > As a purely scientific theory, there is not need to invoke a
> > > Creator.
> > > Accordingly, there is no way anyone can make any sense of
> created or
> > > evolved
> > > in the image of God in the context of the theory. A Christian
> > > believes in
> > > both Christ and evolution can reconcile the two in his/her mind
> > > that is
> > > about it. It may take all sorts of intellectual contortions but
> > > can do
> > > that. Moorad
> > >
> > >
> > Moorad,
> > I have a grave problem with your claim that there is a "complete
> > in science, any field. One way this is a possible claim is with
> > assumption of scientism, which is a nonsense theory because the
> basis of
> > the scientific approach cannot be justified scientifically.
> > given every possible scientific explanation for an event, they are
> not so
> > comprehensive that nonscientific explanations are also
> > "natural" and "supernatural." The other way this is possible is
> > accept the deistic view that whatever is explained scientifically
> > be ascribed to God's handiwork. Since the universe is held
> together by
> > Christ, this also cannot be held by a Christian who understands
> > connection between what God does and what we study. If there is a
> > basis for your claim, I don't think of it now. But I will
> > predict that it can have no place in an adequate Christian view of
> > science.
> > Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 14:17:53 EDT