Re: Evolution Statement (corrected)

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun Dec 09 2001 - 17:16:00 EST

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: Response to: What does the creation lack?"

    Michael Roberts wrote:

    > >
    > > Then do experiments to test the validity of your claims. But do not rest
    > on
    > > what nature has already done since that is history not science.
    > >
    >
    > I get sick of those who cannot/will not recognise historical science
    > and assume physics is the only true science.Was it Bragg who said "all
    > science is physics the rest is stamp-collecting". What Moorad does is to
    > assume that science must always be experimental and simply ignores what
    > William Whewell called the palaeoaetiological sciences way back in c1840.
    >
    > Historical and experimental sciences have different but overlapping
    > methodologies. There ARE parallels between historical science and human
    > history as both depend on ancient evidence. One artefacts are used in
    > history we have moved away from relying on human recorders (as if an
    > eyewitness is always reliable)
    >
    > I cant help feeling that Moorad and others simply balnk out historical
    > science

    Das ist gewisslich wahr! But please do not blame all physicists for this error
    - even physicists like myself who think that physics is the most precise &, in a
    sense, most fundamental of the natural sciences. The future aspect of
    "prediction" is secondary. What is crucial in providing support for a theory -
    whether physics, biology, geology, or anything else - is explaining previously
    unknown, or unaccounted for, phenomena. Whether those phenomena happened 10^8
    years ago or will happen tomorrow is of minor importance for this purpose.
        & in fact physics itself isn't primarily in the business of "predicting"
    specific events in the future. Those who "predicted" the omega-minus or the top
    quark weren't concerned with when such a particle would be seen or at what
    accelerator. It's the general pattern of events that's of interest.
        BTW, I think it was Rutherford who made the stamp-collecting remark. I'm
    mildly offended by it, but only because I'm a stamp collector!

    Shalom,
    George

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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 09 2001 - 17:15:41 EST