Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: John H K
Starting with the first name on the list, we have Dr. Schaefer.

Since 1987 Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently named the third-most cited chemist in the world.

Here's a link to a paper he wrote:

Is Evolution a Good Theory?

An excerpt:

Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity precisely predicted the appearances of Halley's comet in 1910 and 1986. On the latter occasion I was on sabbatical from Berkeley at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. The newspaper (informed by classical mechanics and the law of gravity) told me exactly when I had to wake up in the middle of the night to enjoy the wonder of Halley's Comet. And in fact, the theory of gravity never fails for the macrosopic objects to which it is applicable. A second successful theory, the atomic theory,is grounded in Schroedinger's Equation and the Dirac Equation. Atomic theory is able to make many predictions of the spectra of the hydrogen molecule and the helium atom to more significant figures that may be currently measured in the laboratory. We are utterly confident that these predictions will be confirmed by future experiments. By any reasonable standard the theory of gravity and the atomic theory are good theories, well deserving of A grades. In comparison with these quantitative theories of the physical sciences, when it comes to Hawking's second requirement for a good theory, the standard evolutionary model fails, and should be given a D grade at best.

10 posted on 05/05/2004 12:00:52 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: bondserv; LiteKeeper; Elsie
Pingo
12 posted on 05/05/2004 12:01:50 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
>Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity ... the atomic theory...

Wow. I know of nobody outside of the Creationist realm who makes such comparisons. Those are silly, and point out that this is nothing more than a strawman arguement, and a weak-a$$, lame one at that.

Evolution does not follow a set of equations, but it is clearly seen. Predictions based upon evolutionary theory are regularly made, regularly tested, and regularly shown to be valid (i.e. "I predict that a transitional fossil between X and Z will be found."). To claim that biological evolution does not occur because it does not follow strict mathematical rules is as goofy as claiming that history or erosion or global climate change on the megayear scale do not exist.

Evolution is not a fundamental force of nature like gravity or the weak nuclear force, but is the *result* of the interactions of a very, very complex set of variables.
22 posted on 05/05/2004 12:58:21 PM PDT by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson