My home page: http://www.horizons-2000.org

April 2005

Just some thoughts

1. What is a theory? Here is a simplified version of one view: some people including some philosophers and scientists think that a good theory is one that explains all the known facts; therefore when new facts are revealed that contradict the theory, a new theory is needed. Here is another view: a theory is about a part of reality but not about all of it. In that sense, a good theory captures the essence of a phase of the world but not the entire world; in that sense a good theory is a fact. That is why engineers can still use Newtonian Mechanics with confidence in designing many kinds of machines even though Newtonian Mechanics has been supplanted by Relativistic and Quantum Mechanics as the currently best explanation of what is known of nature (including data.) So, a good theory is both a theory and, in the sense just explained, a fact

2. Is evolution a fact or a theory? If evolution did take place then it is a fact. Darwinism is the scientific theory that attempts to explain evolution. I believe that the evidence supports evolution as a fact: there are gaps in the fossil record but these gaps exist usually because the life forms had no skeletons or perhaps due to geological upheaval. Additionally, there are many other kinds of data that support evolution, e.g., that all life has DNA and that the DNA of the apes is 98% or more the same as ours. What about Darwinism? When Darwin published his theory in 1859, there were many serious gaps in its explanatory ability and there were strong reasons to doubt it even though it explained much. However, after 150 years of effort, most of the gaps have been filled and what was lacking in Darwin's arguments has been cleaned up by a proper understanding of genetics, molecular biology and other developments. Thus, Darwinism is not identical to Darwin's ideas in their original (1859) form but incorporates them, modifies and adds to them. However, Modern Darwinism still holds the central tenets of Darwin's theories such as evolutionary change by variation and selection. I believe that Modern Darwinism is both a theory and a fact. Does the modern version explain everything? According to the point made earlier it does not need to explain everything about life. For example, the origin of life from complex molecules has not yet been explained in detail. That, however, does not disprove evolution. What about the evolution a complex organ such as the eye? If we look at nature we can see different eyes of different degrees of complexity, each kind of eye being functional. This shows that the evolution of complexity does not disprove evolution and does not require 'intelligent design.' That nature just cannot be the source of something complex such as a human being seems to be more a defect in the imagination of thinkers than a lack in nature. That God created the world is, I think, in its most honest form, an acceptance of the mystery of the world. That Jesus Christ rose from the dead is, in addition to being an article of faith, a reminder that, despite our knowledge of the universe as revealed by science including Darwinism, we do not understand or know the nature of death and ultimate reality

3. Now consider the void. The void is what remains when an object is 'subtracted' from itself. Therefore the void exists. The void is not just the absence of things but also the absence of patterns and laws.  Suppose that the void could not generate some actual thing or a described thing (whose description does not involve or lead to a contradiction.) That would be a law of the void which is impossible. Therefore, the void is equivalent to every actual thing, to all things, and to all things whose description is non-contradictory. That is, every thing that can be described will come to be (except when the description is paradoxical.) The universe, therefore, is infinitely more complex than thus far imagined in science, poetry and religion. Also: somewhere in the universe, Jesus Christ did indeed rise from the dead and somewhere did he make wine flow from water. Did that happen on this earth? I do not know the certain answer to this question; however, although miracles are not logically impossible they are normally very unlikely – else they would not be called miracles

4. I think that the museum curators (New York Times article) have been trying to be respectful of creationists. I am impressed by the general quality of honesty and truth in this blog; by individuals displaying intelligence; by persons having a viewpoint and accepting its limits and respecting others… so much unlike much public debate in the modern world. I was most impressed by the blog from the person who said "I do not hide my head in the sand or make excuses for what I cannot explain or understand of the Holy Scripture but,  that’s where my faith comes in.  I know what I believe and I will stand firm in my faith." I think he/she was being honest

5. When people feel diminished by the thought that we ‘descended from the apes’ there is no reason to feel that way. We have the same number of eyes, ears, and limbs and are similar in many ways to the apes – but every species is ‘unique’ in its own environment, a gorilla is infinitely ‘superior’ to a human in being a gorilla and I am (some of my friends might disagree) infinitely superior to a gorilla in being human

6. I know this has been very long and I apologize if it takes up too much space. There's more at my website http://www.horizons-2000.org