"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> The prototype of historical science is forensic science. One makes assumptions
> and views the existing data to confirm the assumptions. But one ought not
> confuse the assumptions with the conclusions----evolutionary theory assumes
> something and cannot conclude unambiguously that the assumption is a fact. The
> predictions are backward in time, whereas in an experimental science like
> physics, the predictions are mostly forward in time. Moorad
You've left yourself an out with the qualification "mostly" in your last
sentence. In fact, as I noted earlier this a.m., there is no reason in principle
to favor "predictions" (or "novel facts") dealing with events in the future over
those in the past. The reason that predictions of evolutionary theories are
usually about past phenomena isn't far to seek: That's when virtually all the
evolution accessible to our observations occurs. Even if we could make a
prediction for what would happen 100 years in the future & have the patience to
wait for it, that would only be a few generations for many species & would
constitute less than a 10^-7 of the history of life on earth.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 12:54:53 EST