This response apparently totally misinterprets the history of science.
Copernicus was not abandoned when Kepler refined the orbits and Newton
explained them. Newton wasn't lost when Einstein added a further
refinement. Fact is, Newton's equations are used in every space launch.
There are occasional goofs. I think of N-rays and cold fusion. But they
were quickly spotted. On the other hand, what has been rejected in the
absence of definite evidence, e.g., continental drift, has been accepted
when data became available. I expect that there will be breakthroughs in
the future, but they will build on what we know, not wipe it out.
Matters have not progressed as simply with biology because the
developments are more recent and more complex. However, the work in
sequencing, gene action, protein action, etc., all tie together to
indicate that creatures developed from an original living entity.* The
one thing remaining is the origin of life, the sole hope for an honest
expectation of divine intervention. Christians see providence in the
whole, but this is outside of scientific investigation. Of course, a
human being can imagine almost anything--War of the Worlds, Zeus's
thunderbolts, Minotaurs, Kali, etc. almost ad inf.
*Of course, one can always posit a Creator without much imagination,
which to me makes as much sense as creation five minutes ago. Neither can
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:34:13 -0600 "Tjalle T Vandergraaf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dave Siemens wrote, "I note that none of the individuals Michael
mentioned had access to radio-dating, for radioactivity was not
discovered till 1896. I don't have a date for the discovery of the U-Pb
series, but it was later. Now we have additional series that coincide to
demonstrate antiquity." And "Since our understanding of the nature of
nuclei gives a solid theoretical foundation to the computation of the
timing of the release of alpha and beta particles and gamma rays, there's
little hope that there'll be a revision because of a brass mirror. The
fuzzy image refers specifically to the spiritual future."
Yes, I know all that and the information obtained from the Oklo deposit
presents a pretty airtight argument for an old earth. There *is* probably
little chance that our current views will change but I still think that a
certain amount of humility is warranted. My tack is to present the
arguments for an old earth but also mention that our views are based on
our current understanding.
Received on Sun Feb 5 12:43:34 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 05 2006 - 12:43:34 EST