Re: A reaction to ID

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:35:30 -0500 "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
writes: [quoting George]
> <snip>
> 4) I think that one reason some people insist so strongly on a
> young earth
> is that it makes significant evolution impossible. If the earth is
> only ~
> 10^4 yr old then there just wasn't time for evolution to occur & any
>
> putative evidence for evolution must be spurious.
>
> Ted:
> Well, sure, this is true at the popular level. But look again at
> the
> "thinkers" in the YEC movement, and look at what Hitchcock was
> writing in
> the 1840s--his comments had to be directed at someone--and Hitchcock
> was
> absolutely dead against evolution (in its pre-Darwinian form of the
> Vestiges
> of the Natural History of Creation). Above all, take a look at
> what Henry
> and John Morris say about this in their Modern Creation Trilogy. A
> real
> eye-opener, that one.
>
> ted
>
>
There's another matter which is being overlooked, which I find humorous.
Since the number of animals which the Ark could carry has had to be
revised downward from the early estimates, which did not consider the
need for feed and water for the cretures aboard, more recent claims
suppose only one representative pair of a genus or family was carried
aboard. Since Abraham had asses and horses are mentioned in connection
with Joseph, within about 5 and 7 centuries, respectively, from the
flood, the two species had evolved from the ancestral pair. I can't be
sure about the several species of zebra, which are not mentioned in
scripture, but it is reasonable to assume that they had skedaddled to
Africa and differentiated during the same time. I am compelled to
conclude that the species Chaucer observed must have generated numerous
distinct species which we observe around us today. We do, don't we?
Unless the flood geologists err in not shrinking all the species to near
microscopic size on entering the Ark, extremely fast macroevolution is an
essential part of YEC theory.
Dave
Received on Tue Mar 1 22:40:23 2005