Some people confuse the question of evolution and the question of the reductionist view on evolution. I think any scientist must accept evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. However, the reduction of evolution to the known laws of physics is a completely different question. Accepting evolution is not a question of proof. It is a question of evidence, and we have a lot. However, the question of its reduction to the known laws of physics is a question of proof. A reduction is a mathematical process. Not surprisingly at all, we don't have such a proof. A lot of the debate around evolution is related to this fact: we cannot tell if such a reduction exists. I feel that the pro evolution scientists feel threatened by this situation and lose their objectivity. Where is the weak link in this reduction : from evolution to chemistry, to chemistry to physics, elsewhere, or maybe none exists? We cannot tell. This doesn't threaten the evolution theory, only the reductionist view on it.
2007-08-24
14:45:00
·
5 answers
·
asked by
My account has been compromised
2
in
Biology