I believe it was Hutton, not Lyell who said with respect to the earth
that
he
saw "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end". With the
evidence
he
had to hand, this was a quite proper thing to say. This was not the
same
as
saying that there was no beginning, or that there would be no end,
although
doubtless there were some who thought so. Lyell was a deist, so I
suspect
he did
believe that there was a beginning sometime.
Kelvin based his calculation on the flow of heat from the earth
(relatively well
known) and then calculated from this how long it would take the earth to
cool
down to the present temperature from an incandescent state with a
temperature
similar to that of the sun. This method had been used since the time of
Buffon
(late 18th century) to calculate the age of the earth. Towards the end
Kelvin
was coming down as low as 60 My for the age of the earth (and it was
cool
enough
to be inhabitable for only a portion of that time).
I do not know of one "uniformitarian" geologist who was unhappy with the
methodology (it is "uniformitarian" after all). Figures of 100 My were
accepted, although this was less than geologists and evolutionary
palaeontologists felt was reasonable on the basis of geological
evidence.
They
were more unhappy when the age started creeping downwards, first to 90
My
and
then 60 My. However geologists lived with it. After all this was
physics, and
they all thought that it was more precise than mere geology.
In the end of course the geologists had the last laugh. The discovery
of
radioactivity showed that the heat flow calculations were based on wrong
assumptions. Radioactivity also paved the way for radiometric dating.
Kelvin
lived long enough to accept that influence of radioactive decay on his
heat flow
calculations, but not long enough for radiometric dating.
On a tangent, one could ague that physics has hindered our understanding
of the
earth more than it has advanced it. Physicists said flatly the
continental
drift was impossible (despite diverse and abundant geological evidence
for
it)
and thus delayed its acceptance for 50 years or more. Of course, with
plate
tectonics the geophysics said it was their idea all along. History
would
indicate that if there is a conflict between geological evidence and
physical
theory, then you should believe the geological evidence. The physicists
will
come round eventually (and take the credit). I am completely unbiased,
of
course!
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) estimated that the sun could not have
> illuminated the earth for more than about 100 million years. His
calculation
> was contrary to the Uniformitarian school of geology. Geologist
Charles
> Lyell argued that the forces in nature were constant and uniform and
that
> the earth in the past was pretty much as it is today--no origin for
the
> earth. This conclusion by Kelvin were based on the principle of the
> conservation of energy. Of course, this old estimate has been
superseded
by
> the notion of nuclear energy that increases the lifetime of the sun
into
the
> 10 billion years instead of 100 millions.
>
> Take care,
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Reading Behe... Any thoughts?
>
> >Deare Moorad
> >
> >Pardon the interjection but I have a question.
> >
> >You wrote to George Andrews:
> >
> >> Dear George,
> >>
> >> Cosmologists taught the geologists a lesson with the notion of an
> evolutionary
> >> universe.
> >>
> >
> >What lesson was this and when did it occur?
> >
> >God Bless
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
Dear Moorad
I believe it was Hutton, not Lyell who said with respect to the earth
that
he
saw "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end". With the
evidence
he
had to hand, this was a quite proper thing to say. This was not the
same
as
saying that there was no beginning, or that there would be no end,
although
doubtless there were some who thought so. Lyell was a deist, so I
suspect
he did
believe that there was a beginning sometime.
Kelvin based his calculation on the flow of heat from the earth
(relatively well
known) and then calculated from this how long it would take the earth to
cool
down to the present temperature from an incandescent state with a
temperature
similar to that of the sun. This method had been used since the time of
Buffon
(late 18th century) to calculate the age of the earth. Towards the end
Kelvin
was coming down as low as 60 My for the age of the earth (and it was
cool
enough
to be inhabitable for only a portion of that time).
I do not know of one "uniformitarian" geologist who was unhappy with the
methodology (it is "uniformitarian" after all). Figures of 100 My were
accepted, although this was less than geologists and evolutionary
palaeontologists felt was reasonable on the basis of geological
evidence.
They
were more unhappy when the age started creeping downwards, first to 90
My
and
then 60 My. However geologists lived with it. After all this was
physics, and
they all thought that it was more precise than mere geology.
In the end of course the geologists had the last laugh. The discovery
of
radioactivity showed that the heat flow calculations were based on wrong
assumptions. Radioactivity also paved the way for radiometric dating.
Kelvin
lived long enough to accept that influence of radioactive decay on his
heat flow
calculations, but not long enough for radiometric dating.
On a tangent, one could ague that physics has hindered our understanding
of the
earth more than it has advanced it. Physicists said flatly the
continental
drift was impossible (despite diverse and abundant geological evidence
for
it)
and thus delayed its acceptance for 50 years or more. Of course, with
plate
tectonics the geophysics said it was their idea all along. History
would
indicate that if there is a conflict between geological evidence and
physical
theory, then you should believe the geological evidence. The physicists
will
come round eventually (and take the credit). I am completely unbiased,
of
course!
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) estimated that the sun could not have
> illuminated the earth for more than about 100 million years. His
calculation
> was contrary to the Uniformitarian school of geology. Geologist
Charles
> Lyell argued that the forces in nature were constant and uniform and
that
> the earth in the past was pretty much as it is today--no origin for
the
> earth. This conclusion by Kelvin were based on the principle of the
> conservation of energy. Of course, this old estimate has been
superseded
by
> the notion of nuclear energy that increases the lifetime of the sun
into
the
> 10 billion years instead of 100 millions.
>
> Take care,
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au>
> To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Reading Behe... Any thoughts?
>
> >Deare Moorad
> >
> >Pardon the interjection but I have a question.
> >
> >You wrote to George Andrews:
> >
> >> Dear George,
> >>
> >> Cosmologists taught the geologists a lesson with the notion of an
> evolutionary
> >> universe.
> >>
> >
> >What lesson was this and when did it occur?
> >
> >God Bless
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
Dear Moorad
I believe it was Hutton, not Lyell who said with respect to the earth
that
he
saw "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end". With the
evidence
he
had to hand, this was a quite proper thing to say. This was not the
same
as
saying that there was no beginning, or that there would be no end,
although
doubtless there were some who thought so. Lyell was a deist, so I
suspect
he did
believe that there was a beginning sometime.
Kelvin based his calculation on the flow of heat from the earth
(relatively well
known) and then calculated from this how long it would take the earth to
cool
down to the present temperature from an incandescent state with a
temperature
similar to that of the sun. This method had been used since the time of
Buffon
(late 18th century) to calculate the age of the earth. Towards the end
Kelvin
was coming down as low as 60 My for the age of the earth (and it was
cool
enough
to be inhabitable for only a portion of that time).
I do not know of one "uniformitarian" geologist who was unhappy with the
methodology (it is "uniformitarian" after all). Figures of 100 My were
accepted, although this was less than geologists and evolutionary
palaeontologists felt was reasonable on the basis of geological
evidence.
They
were more unhappy when the age started creeping downwards, first to 90
My
and
then 60 My. However geologists lived with it. After all this was
physics, and
they all thought that it was more precise than mere geology.
In the end of course the geologists had the last laugh. The discovery
of
radioactivity showed that the heat flow calculations were based on wrong
assumptions. Radioactivity also paved the way for radiometric dating.
Kelvin
lived long enough to accept that influence of radioactive decay on his
heat flow
calculations, but not long enough for radiometric dating.
On a tangent, one could ague that physics has hindered our understanding
of the
earth more than it has advanced it. Physicists said flatly the
continental
drift was impossible (despite diverse and abundant geological evidence
for
it)
and thus delayed its acceptance for 50 years or more. Of course, with
plate
tectonics the geophysics said it was their idea all along. History
would
indicate that if there is a conflict between geological evidence and
physical
theory, then you should believe the geological evidence. The physicists
will
come round eventually (and take the credit). I am completely unbiased,
of
course!
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) estimated that the sun could not have
> illuminated the earth for more than about 100 million years. His
calculation
> was contrary to the Uniformitarian school of geology. Geologist
Charles
> Lyell argued that the forces in nature were constant and uniform and
that
> the earth in the past was pretty much as it is today--no origin for
the
> earth. This conclusion by Kelvin were based on the principle of the
> conservation of energy. Of course, this old estimate has been
superseded
by
> the notion of nuclear energy that increases the lifetime of the sun
into
the
> 10 billion years instead of 100 millions.
>
> Take care,
>
> Moorad
>