^ | 13 February 2006 | Staff
Click above link to read article (don't forget to refresh browser)
Here's one comment in answer to someone's question regarding the article:
"OKay, so why are Einstein and Newton up for trial, but Darwin isn't?
Sounds like biologists could take a cue from these astronomers."
There really is an answer to your question, and this is it:
Neither Einstein's nor Newton's theories WORK. The cosmos is chock
full of stars and galaxies whirling around out there, not following
the expected path of either theory. Their theories are falsified by
the direct evidence. And so efforts have been made to find something
that would let Einstein's theory, in particular, work. Thus invisible
dark matter that you can't detect, which would allow the theory to be
correct. The amount of "dark matter" is force fit to make the
observations square with Einstein.
Trouble is, this doesn't work either, because Einstein works well for
some things, badly for others, so you have to not just put dark
matter out there, but you have to clump it oddly, more here, less
there, to make the observations fit the theory. Needless to say, this
is an extremely uncomfortable and dubious effort, because you're
adding a non-constant to each equation, in each different frame of
reference. It is possible, of course, to make the whole universe
revolve around the earth mathematically in...you just have to force
different constants and corrections into each and every equation for
each and every orbit except the moon (more or less).
And when you do that, you just know that what you're doing really
isn't an explanation for what's going on. It's a model, and like all
models it has its flaws, but when you're forcing corrections into
every equation to make it fit the data, well, the flaws become so
large that you'd like a new model.
This Chinese scientist purports to have devised a better equation,
which will require less of that forcing. If testing bears that out,
he will have given us a better model.
By contrast, Darwin's model doesn't have the horrible math holes in
it that Einstein's does. The stars don't behave right, but the
fossils and animals more or less do. It's obvious to a physicist that
Einstein's model, while the product of genius and quite good at
explaining some things, doesn't fit the data and needs improvement.
And that's why Einstein is up for trial: the data don't fit, and it's
obvious. It's been obvious for a long time: astronomers have been
trying to force the mddel with dark matter for 70 years.
Darwin's model doesn't have the same obvious and glaring problems.
The more we burrow down into DNA and species, the more we see that
seems to corroborate the basic evolution model. Darwin's direct
theories themselves have been largely left behind for a long time. He
operated in a world of looking at gross anatomical features. Today,
biologists look at genetics. So, in a sense, one might say that
biology really has moved past Darwin (and Mendel). Still, the
difference between biology and astronomy is that there were obvious
problems with Einstein's gravity theory from the beginning: the data
don't fit. By contrast, Darwin's basic conception of natural and
sexual selection, when grafted atop Mendel's concept of genetic
selection of traits, appears to fit the facts of the present and the
Darwin is not as open to easy refutation as Einstein, because
Einstein left distinct mathematical formulae into which one can plug
data and get an answer, which can be seen to either conform, or not,
to the data. Darwinian evolution is more impressionistic.
Still, the human experience of animal husbandry and plant
hybridization, to the point of speciation, certainly gives us strong
support for the Darwinian/Mendelian model of how life got to look
like it looks.
None of this is to say that God isn't the reason why the math works
and speciation comes out. All that Einstein, Darwin, and the Chinese
astronomers are really trying to do is to give us models for how
things work. The WHY of it all, WHY they work that way: that is the
realm of theology and God, not natural science.
posted on 02/14/2006 7:45:31 AM EST by
Received on Tue Feb 14 09:46:41 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 14 2006 - 09:46:41 EST