Austiran Cardinal talks about evolution

[Jon Miller]

people can, and did (in past) claim all sorts of things with ochams razor

and if we accepted ochams razor as science then we would never have explored the atom, the proton, or space-time...

Jon Miller

[Ecthy]

What is Ochams razor?

[Provost Harrison]

One of these perhaps?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
people can, and did (in past) claim all sorts of things with ochams razor

and if we accepted ochams razor as science then we would never have explored the atom, the proton, or space-time...

Jon Miller

That's not true. All of those were explored because of the failure of current theory to predict.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
What is Ochams razor?

Occam's (Ockham's) Razor

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed.

An example of this is geocentrism as compared to heliocentricism. Geocentricism, in order to be scientifically consistant with the observations we have, needs to have epicycles to explain the variations in speed and direction of the apparent motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets. (for retrograde motion) This can get very complex, at least when compared to the heliocentric model.

Another example is Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis vs. special relativity - before special relativity, Lorentz posed that everything was affected by travel through the lumerifious aether, a medium that was hypothesized to be the substance that light propragates through. This hypothesis was basically a last ditch attempt to save the lumerifious aether hypothesis from being completely discredited, which was in serious question after the Michelson-Morley experiment. That is, the light was being affected in the "natural" manner by its travel though the aether as predicted, but so was the experiment itself, cancelling out any difference when measured.

Of course, given special relativity, this was too "complex" - there's no reason to have an aether at all. (Well, to be fair, what can be considered the modern "aether" would be the vacuum of space, but that still has a ton of differences from the properties the luminiferous aether had, but whatever)

It's a strategic form of logic that's extremely helpful in science to decide which hypothesis is "better", basically - keep it simple (in concept, not math - also known as more "elegant")

[Jon Miller]

The simplest explanation is the best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Jon Miller

[Bill3000]

My explanation was better.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's not true. All of those were explored because of the failure of current theory to predict.

there were time periods when there was no failure to predict...

(and in a number of cases.. people still favored one theory despite it not being the 'simplest' to explain the experiment at the time..)

Jon Miller

[Bill3000]

No, it is not meant to explain how God created the world in minute detail, and nor was it written for that purpose. This is why the Cardinal focusses on the cause behind evolution rather than the workings of evolution. Science cannot purport or establish a cause behind evolution, it can only describe how evolution works, and when science presumes to establish the cause, it has stepped beyond it's domain.

Lemme say something here. This strategy by the church was first done with things that is normally accepted today - evolution (erm... well, the concept of common descent and such versus 7-day creationism, I mean.), the fact that the earth is round, geocentrism, et cetera. There are some things that humans have in error when it comes to these "guesses", basically. While science does search for Truth as does religion, it searches for them in different ways, ("how", not "why") and has been more successful in this case than religion has. (Has there recently been any more truths gained/revealed through a new prophet in the founded religions? Most likely not, although there is theology, but that's just reinterpretation of knowledge already known.)

While science does seem to be leading toward a purposeless universe (due to the fact that humanity tends to think that itself is special), that doesn't mean that religion is ultimately false. Well, even if it may, it wouldn't be that big a deal. You can love nature itself, the universe itself, as a supreme being just as you can a ientient omnipoten and omniscient (even though omniscience is impossible) god.

Religion makes errors, as does all of humanity. Sometimes both logic and faith fail us as we make mistakes. Science works around these errors in order to adapt to new knowledge, while religion tends to not, and that's the problem that most scientists have toward organized religion. Dogma has a stigma for precisely this reason.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


there were time periods when there was no failure to predict...

(and in a number of cases.. people still favored one theory despite it not being the 'simplest' to explain the experiment at the time..)

Jon Miller

It's not simply a matter of simplicity. General Relativity is most certainatly not as simple as Newtonian Gravity - just look at the mathematics. However, it is more elegant. It is more refined theory and can explain things that Newtonian Gravity cannot without artifical additions to it.

It's the ability of a previous known hypthoesis to have artifical additions (Like the lumerifious aether's attempts of saving) which are examples of occam's razor - not the actual mathematics itself.

And while Occam's Razor isn't science, (it's logic) it is useful in science sometimes.

[Jon Miller]

another example

in the 70s numerous theories beyond the standard model were developed..

one was SU(2) X SU(2) X SO(4)

another was SU(5)

(I may not remember them quite right.. it has been ~1.4 years (And I always forget SU versus SO))

SU(5) was prefered because it was simpler and more elegant

but some prefered the other, and continued to study it

recently (late 90s) with the discovery of neutrino oscilation

which is a natural result of SU(2) X SU(2) X SO(4) ...

so now I think more people think it is the more complicated theory which is correct

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I don't argue that Occam's Razor is not useful to science sometimes..

I just argue that using Occam's Razor to eliminate a theory is not neccesarily correct..

Jon Miller

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't argue that Occam's Razor is not useful to science sometimes..

I just argue that using Occam's Razor to eliminate a theory is not neccesarily correct..

Jon Miller

It cannot be the sole factor, yes. But it's a good rule of thumb (and that is basically what it is)

And as I said, it's a not of matter of complexity, but elegance. Elegance doesn't have to be directly proportional to simplicity, although it can be.

...oh wait, read your post. Meh. As I said, rule of thumb. Allright, I agree with you - it's not always necessarily correct, but rule of thumb. *ducks before getting smacked for saying that 50 times*

[Patroklos]

That cardinal basically said that all the knoledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, population biology, genetics, and palenotology that PROVE evolution via natural selection is a fact

It is the Theory of Evolution. However likely it might seem (and it is very very very likely), it is neither a fact nor proven.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is the Theory of Evolution. However likely it might seem (and it is very very very likely), it is neither a fact nor proven.

This always goes in circles when the ignorant jump in the fray:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Once again, the word "Theory" in science does not, repeat, DOES NOT denote that something isn't proven. This is conflating the word "hypothesis" and "theory."