Posted on 11/21/2008 5:47:29 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
This issue of Nature anticipates next year's bicentenary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of On The Origin of Species. We begin here with a look 50 years into the future.
"Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 bc," the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973. "It is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." The realization that the processes of biological creation are at once unspeakably old, and in continuous play around us, is one of the greatest discoveries of history. And yet this discovery — unlike that unceasing and ancient creation itself — can be assigned a well-defined and comparatively recent origin in the mid-nineteenth century.
That view of life has been enriched and strengthened in the intervening century and a half, and will continue to be so. But the coming decades could also see Darwin's purview expanded in fundamental ways. The discovery of the universality of the genetic code in the 1960s — the same in elephants and E. coli, as the French molecular biologist Jacques Monod famously put it — magnificently bore out Darwin's view that life is united in a common descent. But that need not remain the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
But I wonder if the Darwin200 Consortium will be presenting exhibits of this material.
"The influence primarily responsible for the modern eugenics movement was the establishment of the doctrine of organic evolution following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859."- Samuel J. Holmes, Human Genetics, 1936, chapter 25.
“Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 bc,” the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973. “It is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.”
And if God created a tree ten seconds ago, it would look like a hundred-year-old tree; but it would only be ten seconds old.
Six thousand years in 15 billion. Hmph.
Even if Darwinism was being studied during the life of Paul the Apostle, it would not have changed his life.
He had previously assisted in the murders of Christians before he was affected by the spirit of Christ. That was a life changing experience.
Read the Book of Acts, starting at Chapter 8 if your want the shortened version.
He traveled far and wide teaching the truth about Jesus, even though he was mistrusted by many on both sides, and often beaten for his works. He died serving God, as we all should.
Many later Books of the New Testament are attributed to him.
What's the problem? Can't refute the science so you have to resort to character assassination?
Pretty weak tea.
INTREP
God is right now creating stars in nebula's across the universe. They do not appear as if they have great age, but appear as new stars. When the Bible says God created our Star, the Sun, do you suppose it necessitates that God used different means to create our star than he is using right now to create new stars?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.