SteamDoc@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/8/01 5:33:18 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> integer@crosswalkmail.com writes:
>
>
>
>> The logic of modern physics is governed by Einstein's principle of
>> RELATIVITY and by Heisenberg's principle of UNCERTAINTY (or
>> AMBIGUITY). It
>> is proposed that these principles are the logical fruit of man's
>> separation
>> from God. This separation from God can be identified with original
>> sin and
>> the Fall of Adam. Being separated from God creates logical
>> confusion about
>> absolute truth. In a futile attempt to eliminate this confusion
>> Adam (or
>> man) has retreated to the logic of RELATIVE and UNCERTAIN human
>> truth.
>
> Like others, I hope this is a joke. It is certainly laughable to
> think
> Einstein's theories of relativity have anything to do with the sort of
> moral
> relativism that denies absolute truth. As a physics prof put it to me
> long
> ago, relativity does not eliminate absolutes, it just changes the
> absolutes
> from what Newton thought they were to other absolutes that require
> different
> measuring sticks.
>
> I wonder if this guy is connected with the group "Common Sense
> Science" which
> is unfortunately not a joke. They made some appearances on another
> mailing
> list a few years back, but the guy only posted canned diatribes and
> was
> silent when asked to actually discuss physics. Their objections to
> modern
> physics (relativity and quantum mechanics) seemed to boil down to two
> real
> issues:
>
> 1) Lack of determinism (which they seemed not to realize did not even
> apply
> to relativity), apparently because their theology required strict
> determinism. They liked to quote the book "Not a Chance" co-authored
> by R.C.
> Sproul. I have not read that book, but I hope it is not as
> scientifically
> inept as the use CSS made of it. From the item David Campbell
> mentioned
> today, I am not optimistic. Admittedly, the apparent indeterminacy in
> QM is
> not without theological challenges, but when asked to produce
> theologically
> acceptable alternatives for things like the attraction between argon
> atoms,
> their spokesman crawled back into his cave and was silent.
>
> 2) The fact that relativity and QM did not agree with their common
> sense.
> That's the one that is really indefensible IMO -- as though the
> "common
> sense" of fallen humans should be an infallible guide to truth.
Actually most of the fringe opposition to relativity and quantum
theory boils down to the "common sense" objection. An example germane
to this list is Thomas G. Barnes' _Physics of the Future_, which was
published in 1983 by ICR. It is more sophisticated than many such
attempts - Barnes actually knows something of classical mechanics &
electrodynamics. But he didn't know much about relativity & QM and the
overall work is pretty inept.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 20:03:17 EST