In a message dated 5/11/2006 10:46:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> To expand on that a bit... Science also depends on a notion of elegance. > Look at superstring theory, for example. We have no accelerators that come > close to producing the sort of energy necessary to demonstrate a basis in > reality for it. However, it explains much more than any other theory, which > makes it rather elegant. Still, it is good science. Much the same could be > said of evolution -- we have very little direct evidence, but i is an > elegant explanation of a great deal of what we see. And thus it is subject > to the silly "just a theory" criticism There is a serious difference between string theory and evolution. String theory is mathematically elegent but since there is no experimental data to support it many in the physics community do not consider it science at least not yet. Some of the notions of string theory may be testible with the next generation of super coliders since energies associated with the weak gauge boson will be produced. In the physics community there is far from universal acceptance of string theory. Other ideas (or ideas that contain some elements of string theory) abound. For a review of some of these theories try Lisa Randall,s "Warped Passages". On the other hand the notion that evolution has no emprical evidence is simply untrue. At virtually every level from paleontology to field ecology to genetics evolutionary ideas are tested with experiment and observation. The notion that at evolution by natural selection is accepted because it is an "elegant theory" is simply completely contrary to reality. Many thinkers have rejected it because it seemed to be completely inelegant. It was famoulsy described as the theory of higly pigly. Some have mistakenly thought that the basic notion of differential success of traits in the face of limited resourses is too simple to be important or too weak to explain the world we live in. The true subtley and power of natural selection as a theory has escaped many serious thinkers who have argued that tratis that improve survival survive is an empty tautology (it is not). So evolution has succeeded as theory not because of its elegance (elegant theories are typically elegant mathematically - evolution is is traditionally non-mathematical field - Darwin was bad at math and there is only graph in Origin of the Species - The bush of life) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
