Re: Moorad wrote:
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:30:37 -0500 (EST)
At 03:51 PM 10/17/98 -0600, John W Burgeson wrote:
>Moorad wrote:
>
>"My statement still
>stands that evolutionary theory is not on equal footing with physics. I
>do
>not know of any theory of evolution that can be written down and what is
>written down makes predications which can be verified in the future"
>
>Let me try a variation on that.
>
>"My statement still
>stands that weather theory is not on equal footing with physics. I do
>not know of any theory of weather that can be written down and what is
>written down makes predications which can be verified in the future"
>
>I assume you might agree with my new statement. But that does not make
>either one of them "bad science" nor even not on equal footing." They
>address different things (physics is a bad example, BTW, for it addresses
>so many things, some of which are as chaotic as evolution and weather
>theory!).
>
>John Casti has written two excellent books on this idea, PARADIGMS LOST
>and SEARCH FOR CERTAINTY. I recommend them.
>
> Burgy
I am afraid I do not agree with your "new statement." A weather theory
written down by E. Lorenz, albeit simple, made very interesting predictions.
Realistic weather models are much more complicated and are solved
numerically by computers. I know of no such theory of evolution with such
predictive power. Evolutionary theory is not a dynamical theory but mere
words claiming to explain everything we see.
Moorad