RE: Evolution Statement - Did you say "fact"

From: Terry M. Gray (grayt@lamar.colostate.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 07 2001 - 13:02:03 EST

  • Next message: bivalve: "evolution as science from Evolution Statement"

    Mark,

    I don't think I saw anything in the evolution statement about
    "hanging my soul" on the current version. It seems that you are the
    one turning evolution into a religion, not the evolutionary
    scientists.

    TG

    >Correction:
    >
    >There is no evidence to rule out the possibility that the Universe is
    >infinite.
    >If the Universe is infinite then all our collective human "knowledge" is
    >infinitesimal relative to that infinity.
    >Therefore we might be DROWNING in uncertainties.
    >As long as we might be DROWNING in uncertainties, there is no way for us to
    >determine the
    >probability of us DROWNING in uncertainties.
    >We simple don't know how much we don't know.
    >
    >So for us to extrapolate anything on to a possible infinite universe from
    >the vantage point of an
    >infinitesimal insight is the height of arrogance.
    >
    >Since science might have an infinite number of revisions, why hang your soul
    >on the current version ?
    >
    >What canít the universe start with ?
    >
    >I pity the poor God that is limited by your imagination.
    >
    >I wish scientist's would stick to their own knitting...the practical realm,
    >where they can round off all the infinities they want.
    >
    >Leave the big answers to the philosophers.
    >
    >http://markplain.com
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: asa-owner@udomo5.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@udomo5.calvin.edu]On
    >Behalf Of James Taggart
    >Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:09 AM
    >To: Moorad Alexanian; John W Burgeson; asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: RE: Evolution Statement
    >
    >
    >Evolutionary theory, as it is practices is a forensic science. It
    >could, in theory, be tested as a scientific process by taking a 'target'
    >life form, dividing it into two (or more) breeding colonies that can't
    >intermix, and wait to see what happens. It is likely that you'd have to
    >study the beings for a long time, but if you had genetic records of each
    >generation then you could record evolution as fact.
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Moorad Alexanian [mailto:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
    >Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:53 AM
    >To: John W Burgeson; asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: Evolution Statement
    >
    >
    >I looked over the review that you wrote and it seems to me that the fact
    >that Casti gives quantum mechanics a "D" in explanation and an "A" in
    >prediction tells me much of what Casti means by the word explanation.
    >Nature is rather complicated and the attempt of quantum mechanics to
    >describe it is quite successful. One ought not to demand the kind of
    >explanations one feels comfortable with but instead find the one that
    >nature
    >may be imposing on us. If one has not a well defined meaning of what
    >science
    >is, then it is quite easy to confuse science with human reasoning. I
    >have
    >often said that the subject matter of science is data collected by
    >physical
    >devices. The human mind makes inferences from that data to develop
    >theories.
    >Evolutionary theory is forensic science and as such can never say that
    >evolution is a fact. Let us not turn the hypothesis of the
    >evolutionists
    >into a fact---that is not only bad logic but also a deception!!!
    >Moorad

    -- 
    _________________
    Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
    Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
    Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
    grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
    phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 13:03:26 EST