Re: Today's blogs 2

I found the following to be an interesting point:

>
> Current demonstrable scientific predictions begin 10^-43 s after the Big Bang.
> This does not mean that anything presumable earlier is not scientific, only
> that the science has not yet been confirmed. The same holds for the Higgs
> boson. It has not been detected where some theoretical considerations place
> it. But this does not mean that there is no such particle or that the theory
> has to be dumped in favor of something new. It may be that the theory needs to
> be tweaked to predict a heavier particle, or that a new parameter needs to be
> considered. I note that the search goes on. What a GUT requires has not yet
> been determined. If I adopted your claim, string theory and M-theory would be
> outside the bounds of science, as would probably be events falling under
> deterministic chaos. But what is not yet testable does not have to be
> metaphysical rather than scientific. I think you occupy an extreme position.
 
The progress of Iders actually giving us evidence or observations to back
their claim notwithstanding, what if God actually implemented information in
Nature, such as genetic information? If God was responsible, and
information is not reducible to chance in Nature (although I guess there
will always be *some* chance of any given event happening randomly...), then
the claims of ID are not metaphysical either, but actually just as
scientific as string and M-theory (although I don¹t know how each of these
would be empirically determined.)
Received on Thu May 26 09:35:17 2005