Re: "Randomness" in different branches of science
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:42:23 -0500 (EST)At 01:02 PM 2/24/98 -0500, Jan de Koning wrote:
>At 02:03 PM 23/02/98 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>It seems to me that the evolutionary biologists assume a picture and want to
>>fit the data to it. I have no qualms with that. But do not tell me that the
>>original picture is fact. Again I say that it is very doubtful for the
>>evolutionary biologist to ever get to describe their subject matter in the
>>mathematical depth that governs the notion of theories in physics.
>>
>
>"Theories in physics" are not all that sure either. Using probality theory
>etc. you can do a lot, but still when you try to get deeper you end up with
>contradictions. Is it a wave? Or, is it a particle? Same with evolution.
> Many, even Young Earth Creationists, will say that there has been
>evolution, so that makes the fitting for anti-evolutionists just as difficult.
>
>Jan de Koning
>Willowdale, Ont.
Dear Jan,
Theories in physics violate our common sense which is based on our
classically thinking minds. Theories in physics rely on mathematical models
which give precise answers to well-posed questions. The latter is all that
one can expect from a theory.
Moorad