Re: Evolution Statement

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Dec 08 2001 - 12:56:19 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: What is "special creation"?"

    "Moorad Alexanian" wrote:

    > The prototype of historical science is forensic science. One makes assumptions
    > and views the existing data to confirm the assumptions. But one ought not
    > confuse the assumptions with the conclusions----evolutionary theory assumes
    > something and cannot conclude unambiguously that the assumption is a fact. The
    > predictions are backward in time, whereas in an experimental science like
    > physics, the predictions are mostly forward in time. Moorad

            You've left yourself an out with the qualification "mostly" in your last
    sentence. In fact, as I noted earlier this a.m., there is no reason in principle
    to favor "predictions" (or "novel facts") dealing with events in the future over
    those in the past. The reason that predictions of evolutionary theories are
    usually about past phenomena isn't far to seek: That's when virtually all the
    evolution accessible to our observations occurs. Even if we could make a
    prediction for what would happen 100 years in the future & have the patience to
    wait for it, that would only be a few generations for many species & would
    constitute less than a 10^-7 of the history of life on earth.

    Shalom,

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 12:54:53 EST