It is self-evident to me that the question of origins is not a scientific
question. Even if one had a complete theory which explains everything, such
a theory could not give rise that which is being explained. Newtonian
gravitational theory does not give rise to planets. That is the descriptive
aspect of science which has no ontological power to create. Therefore, it
is inconceivable for me to reason without the notion of a Creator.
Even in the very bosom of evolutionary theory the notion of ID cannot be
discarded that easily by invoking the notion of chance. The prototype of
illustrating the notion of chance is a die. [There is an excellent book,
"The Physics of Chance" by Charles Ruhla, which I recommend.] That is to
say, in order to discuss the notion of probabilities in chance events, one
must have a priori knowledge of the possible outcomes. Otherwise, the making
of predictions is impossible. In the case of a die, the construction of a
die, say six-sided, determines the possible outcomes and their
probabilities. We know that the possible outcomes are equally likely if the
die is not loaded. Otherwise, more must be known to predict the different
probabilities associated with the different possible outcomes. Without
knowledge of the possible outcomes, the notion of making predictions makes
no sense whatsoever. Let us not forget that predictions also involve more
than mere knowledge of possible outcomes. What or Who sets the outcome and
the probabilities in evolutionary theory? Who built the die? There is no
mechanism, that I know of, that can make such types of predictions in
evolutionary theory and so evolutionary theory can't ever be a science in
the sense which physics is.
Moorad Alexanian
Physics Department
University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
Wilmington, NC
p.s. I am using the term evolution loosely and did not want to add the
prefix macro- and micro-.