----- Original Message ----- From: "KZK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 5:43 PM Subject: They were For it before they were Against it
> http://www.cathnews.com/news/507/56.php > > The influential Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna has suggested > that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be > incompatible with Catholic faith. The problem with the Cardinal's statement is a bit subtler than one might guess at first glance. Having read through the church's statement on evolution, having read JP II's writings on evolution and science, and then reading the Cardinal's statement....I see him as trying to argue from the position of accepting the science of evolution but standing against some of the interpretations of evolution. That is a perfectly reasonable position; since interpretations are, almost by definition, metaphysical statements, and are fair game for acceptance/rejection on philosophical grounds. I'll admit that I'm kinda reading between the lines here, but I think his mention of the multiverse hints at that sort of objection. List members who have been here a few years know that I differ with the multiverse interpretation of QM: the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of QM. This interpretation solves the problems of multiple (and sometimes infinite) diagonal elements on the QM matrix, or in other words a multiplicity and sometimes infinity of possible eignenstates, by assuming that each eigenstate exists in a parallel universe, and that the universe is splitting constantly into an infinity of universes....only one of which can be observed. The multiverse is not as clearly in the interpretation camp as MWI, but there are some similar elements. The postulating of the existence of an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of randomly set physical laws, of which this is one that happens to have laws that are conducive to not only the existence of matter, but the existence of stars, planets, and life is more interpretation of science than science. It is not testable, any more than Copenhagen vs. MWI is testable. Yet, there are elements of the multi-verse, with a few changes that appear minor on the surface, that could make up a real scientific theory. The best rule of thumb for determining if a concept is a theory or an interpretation is that a scientific theory can be tested by us plumbers, and an interpretation cannot. Now, there are scientific theories that are practically impossible at the moment to test, but are still theories. If, however, something is inherently untestable by plumbers, then it isn't a model of observation, and thus isn't a scientific theory. The Cardinal draws the line in the wrong place....so I'm not defending his editorial. I'm just pointing out that his error is not the typical creationist error. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
