> whether Polkinghorne was
> right to (allegedly - haven't seen the quote) question whether the
> history of Earth was sufficiently long to produce evolution.
There is a long history to this issue.
When Darwin wrote in 1859 he estimated the earth was three times its present
as of 4,5 by. Soon courtesy of Kelvin this was reduced first to 100my then
24 my which was too short for natural selection and hence in the late 19th
guided evolution was popular. Some like GF Wright began to reject evolution.
Then in 1906 along came radiometric age dating and soon the earth was at
least 2 by and 4.5 since 1946. There was more time .
Now some reckon 4.5 by is sufficient time for evolution eg by NS and others
don't. We can wait for a suitable mechanism as some kind of evolution has
happened.
Whatever happens the age of the earth wont be changed by more than a factor
of ten - and I might get shot for saying that.
So whatever the mechanism of evolution, evolutionists cant have any more
time than geochronologists give them:)
There are many things on these issues I am agnostic on and leave it to the
future.
However to argue there is not enough time for evolution could be risky as we
don't know what lies ahead scientifically.
Michael
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 20 18:34:58 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 18:34:58 EST