I believe that it was Margenau who said something like: "Probability is
a measure of ignorance. A person waiting for the mail may have to assign
a probability that he will get a certain number in a day. To the
mailman, this is known and there is no probability associated with it."
So you ask if these things are predictable and I say "yes they are". We
use probability because of our ignorance, not because it is fundamental.
Once upon a time humans did not know how to predict a solar eclipse.
Indeed some progress has been made in the area of solar flares. See, for
example: http://www.gla.ac.uk/publications/leadingedge/3/solar.html
Stephen J. Krogh wrote:
> Hi Walt,You know, I was considering the same thing, but then I was
> thinking about it, it actually is unpredictable. We can't predict the
> environmental changes that will occur to drive evolution, it only
> reacts to it. Could we have predicted the asteroid impacts at Shiva
> and the Chicxulub sites at the time the C/T time? Are solar flares
> predictable? In the scientific sense, chance seems reasonable.
>
> Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
> The PanTerra Group
> http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
>
> ==========================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walter Hicks [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 7:47 PM
> To: Stephen J. Krogh
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
> Good point and I am aware of this. However, what remains --
> with the words "unpredictable" and "chance" --- basically
> gives it the same meaning to most people. We would define
> "unpredictable" and "chance" to leave wiggle room for God.
> However, the common usage of those words would not. We on
> this list can redefine words to satisfy ourselves -- but
> that does get them into the dictionaries that most people
> use.
>
> Moreover, I feel that the definition below may eventually be
> shown to be scientifically invalid. We have no proof
> whatsoever that these processes are governed by "chance".
> Only in quantum mechanics does chance enter in at a
> fundamental level and that may be because it is an
> incomplete thoery. Other (non-QM) events may be complicated
> but that does not make them random. Are stars an example of
> how the chance motion of hydrogen atoms get themselves
> together by historical contingencies and changing
> environments --- or is because of overruling physical laws?
>
>
> Walt
>
>
>
> Stephen J. Krogh wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > > Behalf Of Walter Hicks
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:43 PM
> > > To: Shuan Rose
> > > Cc: Dawsonzhu@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
> > >
> > Also the use
> > > of the word
> > > "random" in secular teaching of evolution has a
> > definite meaning
> > > to most people
> > > -- and it does not correspond to the theology used on
> > this list.
> > > But you will
> > > not get that word removed for teaching of evolution so
> > long as
> > > the "theory of
> > > evolution" is taught in public schools. Also, you
> > cannot in a
> > > public school
> > > redefine "random" to mean possibly under the control
> > of God.
> > >
> > >
> > > Walt
> >
> > Not to be too picky, but just a little FYI:
> >
> > In 1995, the National Association of Biology Teachers
> > (NABT) passed a
> > resolution that tells us what is implied by the slogan
> > "evolution is a
> > fact:" "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of
> > evolution: an
> > unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural
> > process of temporal
> > descent with genetic modification that is affected by
> > natural selection,
> > chance, historical contingencies, and changing
> > environments."
> >
> > However, in 1997, the NABT deleted the two words:
> > unsupervised and
> > impersonal from their definition of evolution. This
> > removal of the challenge
> > to the supernatural should remove much of the opposition
> > to evolution, as it
> > no longer is tied to philosophical conclusions.
> >
> > Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
> > The PanTerra Group
> > http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com
>
>
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 23:00:10 EDT