I have only been following the recent discussions from a distance but I feel I
owe you an explanation for my thoughts concerning the programs you continually
usher forth and are continually frustrated that not very meny seem to take them
seriously. Well, I am one of those for a number of reasons. First, I am at the
limit of my computer literacy just reading these messages and sending an
occasional post myself. <g> I wouldn't know what to do with these programs even
if I was able to download them. Second, and most importantly, I am very
skeptical as a biologist of mathematicians and physicists trying to claim that
their computer simulations have much to say about the biological world. The
biological organism contains a level of complexity (poorly defined word I know)
not present in physics and chemistry. Biological populations bring in a greater
level of complexity and uncertainty beyond the organism. In my population
genetics courses, mathematical models were used only as theoretical
approximations of the real world. If you want to know how real populations act,
you have to go out and get real observations from real populations. I have no
problem understanding that airplanes can be tested completely on computer
without the necessity of wind tunnels. The observations are repeateble enough,
the calculations precise enough that effective computer simulations are
possible. This is just not true of biological populations. Brian Harper
mentioned the article in the June Scientific American byJohn Horgan, "Frm
Complexity to Perplexity." I thought this paragraph states my problem rather
well:
"Numerical models work particularly well in astronomy and physics because
objects and forces conform to their mathematical definitions so precisely.
Mathematical theories are less compelling when applied to more complex
phenomena, notably anything in the biological realm. As evolutionary biologist
Ernst Mayr has pointed out each organism is unique; each also changes from
moment to moment. That is why biology has resisted mathematicization."
I also found the comment from evolutioanry biologist and theoretical biologist
John Maynard Smith interesting. "he has concluded that artificial life is
'basically a fact-free science.' During his last visit (to the Santa Fe
Institute), he recalls, "the only time a fact was mentioned was when I
mentioned it, and that was considered to be in rather bad taste."
Anyway, I'm sure these programs do exactly what you claim for them. I trust
your reporting. I just remain eminently skeptical about whether they mean
anything in the real biological world.
Ray Bohlin
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, #100
Richardson, TX 75081
214-480-0240
P.S. Thanks for the kind review of my encounter with Eugenis Scott on our local
Public Radio station. I was pleased with the outcome. Glen Mitchell, the host
asked for more info about Probe. we may get further opportunities to appear on
his show. Thanks for listening and praying. Your review was beter than I could
have done. It was helpful to read your perspective.
Ray