I have alluded to this before but I want to emphasize:
A physcist is a scientist looking for a grant. Generally, they do not
care at all what the philsophical consequences of the physics are. This
is for some lunnies in another building. Not so in biology where some
blatantly insert philsophy and unsupported assumptions and begin with
"evolution (meaning evolutionism) is the central concept of biology.
Actually, I would like to propose the counter that "design "(meaning
God) is the central concept of biology.
Now in my graduate student days at a major university we discussed
issues such as is the speed of light realy a constant with time and so
forth about the other constants of the universe. Then, we considered
such questions as to how would we know. The matter is really very very
complex. Many constants conspire to occure in phsical phenomena in
groups so if one is changed the others have to change to keep the
universe functioning as we know it.
NEVER was the philsophical import of all this discussed or cared about.
Like who cares. This is a far cry from the view of some who portray
scientists as some kind of a cult to kill God. In biology with the
evolutionary white-wash I suppose. However, I have sitting in front of
me a very large book which is a survey of modern biology. Guess what:
It begins with the grand assumption about evolution as the core but then
goes on to basically ignore this. Reality is that evolution is inserted
in the text here and there almost as a chant to some unknown god but not
realy for much explanatory power and certainly and absolutely no
predictive power.
Let me encourge you to believe that the scinetific community which most
assuredly does not believe that the speed of light is changing is not
taking this position for any phisophical or theological agenda.
Further, the question has been and is continuing to be re-asked because
showing it to be wrong immediately gets a big Nobel prize.
Bert M.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 00:16:35 EST