On Sep 13, 2005, at 5:24 AM, Leonard Matusik wrote:
Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:13:35 -0700 Warren Ockrassa wrote:
(I'm not being coy. We can't predict weather accurately past a few
days; what you're asking about is a lot more complex over many more
differences in timescales.)
A most excellent point, Warren! (the whole heart of the matter to my
mind) The phenomena of evolution is sufficiently complex and so
insufficiently understood, that Darwinism had no business strutting
around calling itself "science" for a hundred years. At best it was
some sort of "natural philosophy" with some possible RealWorld
applications.
This is on par with suggesting that, because no one can predict what
the winning numbers will be in next week's lottery, obviously it's
foolish to contend that aerodynamics has any factual merit to it, and
therefore anyone who relies on aerodynamics for the purposes of flight
is clearly building a science on a flimsy foundation.
You're not comparing apples to oranges here; you're comparing apples to
office buildings. There is absolutely no relationship between
complexity causing predictive failure … and complexity being analyzed
*after the fact* for the purposes of understanding.
This is, of course, why hindsight is always 20/20.
Sorry if I seem so contentious on the point but I repeat, the vehement
reliance of natural selection as a mechanism for macro-Evolution has
stiffled the quest for truth in this arena for a century (and still
does!)
I haven't seen you propose a sensible alternative yet.
(i'm rather fond of that FlyingSpaghettiMonster bit myself).
Of course you are. His Noodly Appendage toucheth all.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
