RE: definition of science

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 09:48:11 EDT

Of course, the question of origins can and ought to be taken as far back
as possible. However, whatever initial conditions we choose must be
clearly stated and not be our conclusions.

Many Darwinist do say that "evolution is a fact" rather than say that it
is a working hypostasis.

The rules of mathematics are so analogous to logic that some think the
two are the same. I will not get into that argument. However, it is true
that the easiest and best way we know of making unequivocal predictions
is by setting the laws of nature in mathematical form.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Fischer []
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:29 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; ASA
Subject: RE: definition of science

Hi Moorad, you wrote:

> However, how far back in time do we go regarding the question of

As far as we can go. Where would you suggest we stop?

>Surely, Darwinism claims to go all the way back to the beginning,
whatever that is!

Darwin ventured a guess. That's okay. We can do that. He didn't state
at a fact, and if anyone today knows where and how life arose they
pony up.

> Weather forecast is based on purely mathematical models that simulate
atmosphere based on physical concepts like temperature, pressure, etc.
Where is the predictive power in anthropology, biology, and genetics?

Is your point that only with the use of mathematical models can we make

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
Received on Mon Apr 25 09:49:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 25 2005 - 09:49:20 EDT