Dr. Meyer----

Perhaps you may merely modify the conventional phrase for sake of those with abysmal dentition. Perhaps it could be: "licking off more than I can mash".

I remain utterly fatigued, but so far that is all. I thought last night I might have had a sore throat, but if I do it is so mild as to be barely noticeable. I am unable to take my temperature because the digital thermometer has broken down after about two uses. (Indeed, I have found this tends to happen with digital thermometers.) I am not sure what was so difficult about reading a number off a scale so as to justify a complex and fragile technology.....

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:21 PM Ernst Meyer <ernstmeyer@earthlink.net> wrote:



Dear Nikola,
Regarding Darwin vs. Genesis, I may be going, or I may have gone off the deep end, but I presume to identify in the Creation myth, - and remember that I consider all language mythical -, fundamental issues of language, knowledge and belief, in fact the very same issues I must address in my prospective sonnets or odes to Chronos. I must try to understand and to explain the subjective and objective, the spiritual and social function of a god as a pseudo-person who a) knows, and b) acts. How is divine existence (being) related to the subjective existence of the individual?  How is the divine work-product related to the human work-product, and vice versa? In trying to cope with these issues, I may be biting off much more than I can chew, especially in consideration of my abysmal dentition. More on all this later. For now, good night. EJM








On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 22:05 -0400, Nikola Chubrich wrote:

Dear Dr. Meyer:

It seems to me that there are key distinctions between chemistry and physics, and the creation story in Genesis, chiefly:

1) That predictions can be made about experiments
and
2) Unlike prophecy, these predictions are quantitative.

The discipline of error analysis, founded by Gauss, is what allows quantitative prediction to be made. Error analysis gets little attention in popular science, but it is foundational.

Note that neither point applies to Darwinian theory. It seems to me that Darwinian apologists are far too eager to knock down the biblical story, and thus, as you say, end up becoming dogmatists themselves.

I am quite content to simply regard Genesis as literature.

N.I.C.