>===== Original Message From email@example.com =====
>>One must distinguish the past evolution of the characteristics of the
>>moon from that of its original creation. Evolutionary theory deals
>>with the appearance of new complex forms of life from simpler ones.
>There is no good measure of complexity that distinguishes among
>vertebrate forms of life and there is some question that even the
>metazoans can be distinguished without controversy (I think they might).
>On the basis of your suggested criterion -- complexity -- could we put
>you in with the group of scientists that thinks lampreys and humans
>evolved naturally from a common ancestor?
When I lived in California I was in a jury case in the trial of the Oakland
Seven--during the Vietnam War these accused blocked a train track carrying
military material. I was dismissed by the prosecution and I wondered why. I
spoke to the defense attorney, who was an Armenian like me, and he said that I
would never be a juror in a criminal case since I am a scientist and would
require too much proof to convict.
In answer to your question, you could not put me in such a group of
scientists. I am in the same position of people who have to take what I say
quo physicist by faith since they do not know enough to judge by themselves
the physics involved. I require too much proof and I do not see it in this
case. Perhaps it is my realization that it is logically impossible to avoid
the existence of a Creator. Also, I associate the Creator with the biblical
God and His Son Jesus Christ. For instance, the following puzzles me, why did
Jesus say that from the beginning God created them male and female? Did He
think we were not ready for a class in biology or evolutionary theory?
>>The analogous statement for the moon would be to find a simpler moon to
>>which the present more complex moon evolved from.
>That's not the impression I've had reading your posts.
>The actual statement I feel you've been defending is that events which
>happened unobserved in the past are not valid scientific subjects.
>After all, we could never have predicted the specific pattern of craters
>that appear on the moon, let alone whether a moon would have formed
>to orbit the earth. And we certainly can't jump into the "way-back
>machine" and see it all happen again.
What I have said is that the subject matter of science is determined by
physical devices. For instance, consciousness cannot be determined or measured
with a physical device and so it is not the subject matter of science. Only
the non-physical self in man can detect consciousness. Fossil, stones, etc.
are physical entities that can tell a story via physical devices that measure,
for instance, chemical composition, age, etc. Therefore, your understanding
of what I have said is not quite right!
>>It is the problem of origins that I strong believe is not a scientific
>I'm aware of your beliefs. But let me ask you something that you
>once considered in an earlier post:
>What role do you think pre-existing religious convictions play in
>forming such a belief about what constitutes "true science"(tm).
Philosophers, psychologists, etc. can talk and do talk about with is time. But
physicists define time operationally via clocks. It is that simple. The whole
of science is like that otherwise objectivity will soon disappear from
science. This has nothing to do with my religious views. In fact, by reigning
in science one can then talk about the supernatural. Otherwise, doing science
is confused with human reasoning and then one is lead to scientism,
I have enjoyed your questions that helps me to further clarify and think
through the issues involved. Thanks for such penetrating questions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 19:54:08 EST