RE: Evolution Statement

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 08 2001 - 15:27:36 EST

  • Next message: Stephen J. Krogh: "RE: What is "special creation"?"

    I am sure that if we knew all the science there is to be known, evolutionary
    theory would still have no ability to make forward in time predictions. First
    and foremost the complexity of the problem is cosmological in magnitude.
    Secondly, even knowing precisely all the basic laws of science, the derivation
    of complex system out of the basic science would still be intractable. The
    fundamental problem of a purely scientific approach to the origin of living
    things is beyond human imagination. Even the simplest facts in physis---for
    instance, the numerical value of the fine-structure constant---are extremely
    difficult to solve and one has not hint of how to even approach it. How much
    more difficult are the problems posed by the existence of life and its
    historical development. Of course, it may be that the latter is not even a
    scientific question but a purely historical one. Moorad

    >===== Original Message From george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> =====
    >"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 - 15:27:43 EST