[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

> In science class, truth is hard to come by. Generally,
> we are happy with models that make predictions that
> can be tested. Models whose predictions come out right
> are considered good models, and models whose
> predictions come out wrong are not so good models.
> Maybe even wrong.
This statement is the key to defusing the difficulty the religious right has
with evolution.  As I have been saying, it is a model.  By avoiding the word
theory the problem with common usage is avoided.  The idea of a model based
on physical evidence means it can not admit a supernatural explanation.  It
is a construct of our own minds which allows making a coherent explanation,
and which can be used for prediction.  And by explanation we only mean that
the explanation adheres to the rules that we have created to make the data
coherent.

Anyone who claims that it is scientifically proven that life is too complex
to be created by an evolutionary mechanism should be challenged to come up
with a strong statistical analysis based on data.  Of course this can not be
done.

I had a student who asked how we know that the stars and galaxies are real
and not just painted on the sky.  He had read books that discussed them, but
never brought out the idea that you can actually measure the distances by
various clever schemes.  So much of our scientific literature never brings
out the evidence, and concentrates on the results that students just
memorize the magic ideas.  No wonder people do not believe many ideas in
science.  They never consider that geologists use the idea of change over
time and are successful in finding useful resources.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l