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
>There is no evidence to rule out the possibility that the Universe is
>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
>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.
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
>Behalf Of James Taggart
>Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:09 AM
>To: Moorad Alexanian; John W Burgeson; email@example.com
>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.
>From: Moorad Alexanian [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 9:53 AM
>To: John W Burgeson; email@example.com
>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
>may be imposing on us. If one has not a well defined meaning of what
>is, then it is quite easy to confuse science with human reasoning. I
>often said that the subject matter of science is data collected by
>devices. The human mind makes inferences from that data to develop
>Evolutionary theory is forensic science and as such can never say that
>evolution is a fact. Let us not turn the hypothesis of the
>into a fact---that is not only bad logic but also a deception!!!
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 firstname.lastname@example.org 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