| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
> Definitely not. They have a scripture alone world view and that's > basically all there is to it. < More of a "my take on selected bits of scripture alone" view. Verses to the effect of "Do not lie" tend to be neglected, in addition to questions about whether Genesis was ever meant to be interpreted as a guide to the time and physical method of creation (as opposed to the scientifically indetectable purpose and power behind it). It also varies as to exactly what scripture is in view-there is antievolutionism among Muslims, Hare Krishnas, assorted cults, etc. The 6000 year number (a la Ussher) derives from numerological assumptions rather than from adding up the Biblical genealogies, which are not complete, but the numbers in them come to about 6000 years. >> Can they provide an independent scientifically-based date on the >> 6-10 thousand year age of the Earth? There's a big young earth effort currently, billed as the RATE project, to attack radiometric dating. I don't know of anything that doesn't just rehash old bad arguments, though there's always a chance of some new bad arguments. This may lead to renewed claims that they have scientific evidence for a young earth. >>He used the Schweitzer paper, and argued that the fossil record can't be old at all because of the beautifully preserved veins and, there you have it, the evidence that dinosaurs were recently buried by the proverbial Flood.<< The Flood also purportedly explains how things are so badly beat up in the fossil record. Amazing how much you can explain when you're not constrained by consistency nor by reality. In reality, within a period of a few billion years, some things can happen fast (such as preservation before decay destroys fine structures). In a six thousand year model, everything has to happen fast. Lots of things can't happen fast, due to the laws of thermodynamics. > They [young earthers and ID advocates] both agree, however, that a > creative designer designed the earth and all its inhabitats < The real problem lies in the meaning of "designed". As stated, this is a view held by practically all religions, and rejecting this assertion is very close to endorsing atheism. Conflict with science arises from the insistence that this "design" had to take place in a manner contrary to what the physical evidence indicates. In the particular case of ID, there is an insistance on miraculous gaps in evolution. (This is ID in practice-Behe and Dembski have asserted that gaps in evolution are not necessary to ID in principle, but practically all the support and rhetoric is antievolutionary). Anyone who accepts the principle that the creative designer(s) is smart enough and powerful enough to work through evolution won't have a religious problem with evolution. Thus, the statement that a creative designer designed the earth and all its inhabitants is not inherently in conflict with the statement that the earth formed from debris in a disk around the developing sun and all its inhabitants evolved in processes dictated by natural laws. In fact, Behe apparently accepts all evolution from the origin of the cell onward, a position incompatible with young earth and many ID views, though he doesn't do a good job of repudiating those views nor of substantiating his doubts about prebiotic evolution. Ironically, Darwin made practically the same assertion (first cell supernaturally created and everything evolved from there) in later editions of the Origin of Species, since he had no clue how a cell could form naturally. Behe thus does not disprove Darwin. -- Dr. David Campbell 425 Scientific Collections Building Department of Biological Sciences Biodiversity and Systematics University of Alabama, Box 870345 Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345 USA
Partial index: