Creationism/ID as Science

Newtonian physics is, in fact, false. It is wrong. It is not correct.What it is is useful or "good enough". It may offer an exemplar for what theories that we now accept but may prove to be wrong will undergo. That is, while understood to be wrong they will still survive but as something "right enough" in a restricted domain of application. A useful tool even if overturned as the consensus scientific understanding.Newtonian physics is, as I understand, accurate enough to get Cassini to Saturn but not accurate enough to be used in GPS calculations.Of our current theories one or both of QM and GR are likely to go the way of Newtonian physics. Proved incorrect, that is falsified, but still used.

I think using "truth" in this context isn't a good idea. In fact, it is my understanding that "truth" is a metaphysical concept and, perhaps, best left out of science discussions.The above reads better if you use the words "accuracy" and "accurate". Einsteinian physics shows that newtonian physics gives the wrong answer under all circumstance. However, as you note, the degree of inaccuracy is what matters. Under many circumstances the error of Newtonian physics doesn't matter for the task at hand.It may imply that it should not longer be used but that implication is incorrect and only for those who can't understand real implications of the differences between the theories.There are two different aspects to consider:
1) The results that are given by using the theories in such things as space craft navigation or GPS calculations.
2) What the theories tell us about the nature of the universe in which we live.In the first case Newtonian physics may still be acceptably accurate even if it gives answers which are not precisely correct.In the second case Newtonian physics is wrong if GR is right. The very nature of the fabric of our universe is not as described by Newtonian physics.(edited for spelling -- some of it anyway )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-18-2005 06:06 PM

Remember I pointed out the two different parts of this?The understanding of the nature of our universe?Newtonian physics ---- wrong about that!GR -- less wrong, maybe right.The calculations:
If you want to get really nitpicky about it we are always using GR. We are just using simplified calculations that we know is ok for some circumatances. These happen to, in these circumstances, be exactly those of Newtonian physics. But it is GR that tells us if and when the simpler form is acceptable to use.Geez, I find it amazing that we would argue about this.

As a description of the nature of the universe Newtonian physics has been completely replaced for everyone. GR is a fundamentally different description of the nature of reality.Using some formulae for calculating things is the other aspect of physics. The calculations using Newton's laws still work "well enough". "Well enough" is not the same as absolutely right. "Well enough" means the error is small enough to ignore. However, the error is there. In that nitpicky sense Newtonian physics is known to be wrong.It doesn't matter in day to day use for many people as you note. It doesn't change the fact the GR overturned our understanding of the universe and the the theoretical underpinnings of Newton's formulae are wrong.

Yea, you're right, sorry.