Re: Today's blogs  2

Josh wrote:
>
>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 don?t know how each of these
>would be empirically determined.)
>

The main difference is that string theory and M-theory can
be tested. This is why for example, Glenn has pointed out
that the extra dimensions in these theories are not (at
least currently) observed. That is an important point.
The more solid your footholds and handholds, the more
you can count on the model.

The major problem with ID is that it relies far too heavily
on statistics and does not have a model (other than "God did
it"). Viewed as a scientist, maybe so, but I cannot test
for "God-did-it"s. Without solid footholds, it doesn't take
much to slip and go down.

Statistics (and particularly statistics without a
model) is a highly grief prone enterprise. Granted,
quantum mechanics is essentially probabilities, but again,
it is rooted in a model that has been tested pretty
thoroughly. Einstein was in many ways right to object to
such a model even though in the long run it seems he was
wrong. In general, even when statistics does work, if it
is not built around a physical model, it cannot tackle
the "why"s.

By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Thu May 26 13:39:33 2005