Please do not confuse me with my dog Topper. I do know that it was dogs who
convinced Darwin of evolution but I prefer to be a human than a dog.
17th Century Christians on gelogoy etc ;Steno.Ray, Boyle, Woodward, Lhwyd,
Burnet, and loads more.
I regard them as MEC (Middle age earth creationist) rather than OEC or YEC
as they mostly held that God created chaos first and then later reordered
creation in 6 "da\ys" - bascially early Gap Theory. Very few were strict YEC
but dont tell Ken Ham cos he will be upset and so will H Morris.
The question is how long was the M of MEC. Probably 10s of thousands and not
millions.
See my first and third articles list below.
"Revising the Age of the World", The Discovery of Time, Ed. Stuart McCready.
Source Books (USA)/MBQ Publications, UK, 2001. chapter on theol, geol and
astronomical time from 1600-2000.
Geology and Genesis Unearthed, The Churchman, 112 (3), (1998), p225-256.
The Genesis of Ray and his Successors; Evangelical Quarterly, April 2002
Vol LXXIV, p143-64,
Michael Roberts with Topper at his feet and about to go for a walk.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendee Holtcamp" <wendee@greendzn.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:53 PM
Subject: early Chr. scientists & Gould/was My Daughter is a YEC
>
>
> > I think this hits more at the heart of the problem.
> > Despite Michael Topper's point that most of the
> > people who contributed to science in the first
> > half of the 1800s were devout Christians who had
> > no problem with an ancient earth, we are regularly
> > presented with the science/religion conflict thesis.
>
> Does anyone have any names of early Christians who began to study the age
of
> the earth etc in the 1700s? I know Leonardo da Vinci studied geology, was
he
> a Christian? I know Darwin was initially a Christian, and I believe his
> grandfather Erasmus Darwin who had ideas about evolution may have been.
>
> Help appreciated!
>
> > If one must teach evolution, there is no need
> > whatsoever to present a theory of how it comes
> > about.
>
> Not sure who wrote this, but what the heck do you mean by "how it came
> about"?
>
> There appears to be a great emphasis on
> > Darwinian evolution when it is a theory which Gould
> > disputed. One can present facts without presenting
>
> Gould did not dispute Darwinian evolution! Nobody can dispute natural
> selection, which is the mechanism of evolution that Darwin came up with.
> What has been questioned by Gould and others is the extent to which
natural
> selection has provided the ONLY means for differentiation of the species
(ie
> evolution) compared to random genetic drift or other stochastic events.
Such
> events can not provide any evolution in themselves, they can only limit
the
> gene pool and affect the direction of future evolution by narrowing down
the
> possible gene pool that natural selection has to "work on."
>
> Natural selection is the only theory I have heard of that for a plausible
> mechanism behind evolution.
>
> If any one has any other info I'd be interested in hearing.
>
>
> Thanks!
> Wendee Holtcamp
>
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com
> Environmental Journalist ~~ www.greendzn.com
> Adjunct Instructor of Biology, Kingwood College
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 22:17:16 EDT