Replies

No, mathematics is not science in the Popperian sense, even though we caucus with the sciences, as it were. Science is an end-user of mathematics, and we sometimes get ideas for abstractions to investigate from the sciences, though since the mid-19th century that has happened far less often than an outsider might think, but the method is completely different — hence the strangeness Wigner found in mathematicians having arrived at the things physics needed before the physicists needed them: as an example, all the mathematics Einstein needed to formulate both special and general relativity had already been done, without any regard for possible physical application, by Minkowski and Riemann. Actually, attempts to force mathematics into the pattern of the sciences have, in my view, done great harm to mathematics.

And yes, mathematics is bigger than formal logic (as Goedel’s incompleteness theorem shows).

Your objection that if mathematics is not science, then a scientific model that depends on mathematics, is not science, however, is completely ill founded: marksmanship depends on metallurgy in the sense that the tools of the rifleman are largely made of metal, but that does not mean marksmanship is metallurgy. And, just as if the metallurgy used in making the rifle, cartridge or bullet is defective, the rifleman may find his tools unreliable, so if the mathematics used in making a scientific model is flawed, there may well be problems with the scientific model’s reliability.

Do not fall into the delusion of “scientism” foisted on the world by atheist polemicists: science is not the only reliable way to discover truth, and much trouble has been caused by people who should know better (like Christians) falling into the trap of accepting the notion that it is.

On the other matter, giving a short version of Kalomiros’s argumentation as it bears on the origin of death, I must demure. I would encourage you to read his essay. Yes, it’s 43 pages long, but it’s an easy read, and actually, the origin of death and Christ’s conquest of death, Christ as the Second Adam are all integral to the reading he gives of Genesis. Doing justice to it won’t shorten it that much, will be a great deal of work for me, and will end up giving you something less worth reading than the original essay.

I think you and I have discussed issue before- soem of hwat you’re sayign seems n aweful lot like Deja Vu to me for soem reason, and it seems I had this or a similiar discussion a year or two ago- perhaps I’m wrong, but I suspect not-

At any rate- there’s a few issues o nthe table here- theo ne I’m partcularly interested in is hte kolmogorov complexity, however, before we get there- thsi probability issue needs to be worked out beofre we can tackle kolmogorov because it appears he’s relyign on probabilities as well if I’m not mistaken- so let’s tackle the science one- You claim to be an advocate of Popper- I’m sure you’r no doubt aware of thinkers alogn hte line hwo have rebuttled his positions? And I’m almost certain I discussed this with you a year or two ago- and opointed out some flaws of his- I’ll have to re search what I discovered before, as I’ve forgotten it now- but it seems to me I discovered his strict ‘falsifiability’ requirements in regards to whether or not somethign is scientific was flawed- I’m seeing myself havign typed out that very response to someone here on FR before for osem reason-

But at any rate, I’ll get back to that issue hopefully tomorrow- for now, you said (and do please forgive the horrible typing, I’m flipping all over hte net, fidnign material, reading, thinkign and typing at the same time- my time is limitted- and I do have a neurological issue where letters get scrambled between the brain and figners that makes the4m atter even worse- My errors are far too many to take the limitted time I have to correct them all- so do please bear with me-

I want to address one issue first- you said “And no, asserting that something is not science is not pejorative (at least not unless you believe as turn of the 21st century atheist materialists do that science is the only valid means of uncovering truth) but descriptive”

Well is when You accuse a group who is using science of not usign science- ID precepts of irreducible complexity is infact falsifiable- If an H Pilori bacteria can live without it’s ‘outboard motor’ (which is made up of parts absoltuely essential to it’s function and which can not be removed), then we have just proven that irreducible compelxioty is not a reality- as well, Probabilities are falsifiable- we have just falsified the concept of irredicuble complexity- IF blood clottign can work without one of it’s vital aspects of it’s irreducibly complex system inplace, then the concept of irreducible complexity has been falsified (I beleive it was Miller who tried to concoct a scenario whereby the blood clotting process ‘could have evolved via purely ‘natural processes’ [however, careful examination of his ‘natural processes’ shows that it was anything but nagturasl- it was sueoprnaturally and artificially cotnrolled throughout the scenario to coem to just hte ‘right’ conclusion])

[[Your objection that if mathematics is not science, then a scientific model that depends on mathematics, is not science, however, is completely ill founded:]]

[[marksmanship depends on metallurgy in the sense that the tools of the rifleman are largely made of metal, but that does not mean marksmanship is metallurgy.]]

Not a good analogy- there are many many varieties of metalurgey- soem produce wholly inferior products, soem produce consitantly reliable strong material- soem metals are strogner than others, soem can not withstand stresses- Mathematics has established truths that are consistent by and large and can be relied on to establish cases beyodn a resonable doubt- (such as the probability of DNA belonging to only one person due to the odds beign so large that they could not belong to anyone else-) The claim that probability isn’t falsifiable, I beleive is wrong- let’s suppsoe that after calculating odds for somethign that it is later discovered there was a flaw in the calculations, and so now the old odds are adjusted accordingly, based o n the updated truth, the previous probability odds have been falsified and corrected to conform to the new discovery of the mistake- Shoudl a whole new ‘truth’ be discovered mathematically, then the old probability odds do not jive andm ust be rejected based o nthe new truth, then the old probability odds/calculations have been falsified (good golly this all seems deja vu t o me)

IF however, you are goign to describe an event that supposedly happened billions of years ago in an unknown atmosphere and unknown conditions, then there is no real way of falsifying such events because they can not be duplicated precisely, nor was anyoen there to witness and experience the conditions of the day- nor did they witness anythign macroevolving- Christians are always accused of ‘appelaing to hte unknown’ however, I think much more can be known about our unknown, than can be known abotu macroevoltuion’s unknown- We can at least wintness, test, and falsify whether soemthign is irreducibly complex or not, and we can distinguish the fignerprints of an Intelligent Designer all around us- and strikingly, even secular scientists often agree that there doesw ifnact ‘appear to be’ design (although they ascribe the Intelligent design to nature’s unknown- rather than to God)

[[science is not the only reliable way to discover truth,]]

I never said it was- I am simply responding to your charge that ID proponents are not scientists because they are using ‘unscientific probability’ calculations and because they appeal to irreducibly compelx systems ‘in the wrong manner’ accordign to you- kolmogorov simply described algorithmic irreducible complexity, however, his findings do not really pertain to how life could have arisen from nothing and how new non species psecific information could have arisen to move one species on to another species kind-

[[and much trouble has been caused by people who should know better (like Christians) falling into the trap of accepting the notion that it is.]]

Beleuive me, there is no chance of that with me- the biological, mathematical, chemcial science simply does NOT support macroevoltuion- nor does the fossil record- I do not ely on macroevoltuion science for truth- macroevoltuioon science is an appeal to the unknown, and it tries to fit the evidneces discovered by the science to the faith- My faith lies stricly in the God of htis universe and in His word, and in the fact that death and sin did not enter this world before Adam fell i n the garden- Not all of hte bible is of course to be taken literally, but the creation story is a key central issue that must be taken literally as it is the hwole foundation for salvation theology- to deconstruct it to fit a beleif in millions or billions of years just to accomodate the godless hypothesis of macroevoltuion is to call God a liar- and to destroy the very essence of His creation itself-

[[I would encourage you to read his essay.]]

With all due respect- I’m not really itnerested in reading soemthign thaqt deconstructs God’s word to fit a hypothesis- IF that is the central theme of his essay, then that’s all I wanted to know- if He beleives in a literal six days of creation, in the fall of specially created man, and in the need for a savior- then I’ll give it a read-