Almeyda writes:
PHYSICS - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Here's what Kelvin said in the presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1871, according to Stephen G. Brush:
"How, then ... did life originate on the earth? Tracing the physical history of the earth backwards, on strict dynamical principles, we are brought to a red-hot melted globe on which no life could exist. Hence, when the earth was first fit for life, there was no living thing on it. There were rocks solid and disintegrated, water, air all around, warmed and illuminated by a brilliant sun, ready to become a garden. Did grass and trees and flowers spring into existence, in all the fullness of ripe beauty, by a fiat of Creative Power? Or did vegetation, growing up from seed sown, spread and multiply over the whole earth? Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honor, to face fearlessly every problem which can be fairly presented to it. If a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power."
He proposed that seed-bearing meteoritic stones first brought life to earth. He stated:
"From the earth stocked with such vegetation as it could receive meteorically to the earth teeming with all the endless variety of plants and animals which now inhabit it, the step is prodigious; yet, according to the doctrine of continuity, most ably laid before the Association by a predecessor in this chair [Mr. Grove], all creatures now living on earth have proceeded by orderly evolution from some such origin." -- Lord Kelvin
Kelvin accepted evolution, but rejected Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution, largely because there didn't seem to be enough time based on known physics of Kelvin's time - the later discovery of radioactive matter negated Kelvin's objections on that score. But unless creationists have embraced panspermia within the last few hours, Kelvin was not a "creationist" in the standard meaning of the term. "Theistic evolutionist" seems to best fit his views.
Source: "Kelvin Was Not a Creationist", by Stephen G. Brush,
Creation/Evolution, Spring 1982, Issue VIII, p. 12, available from the National Center for Science Education. For an online copy of the C/E journal, see:
http://www.ncseweb.org/...8_volume_3_number_2__12_4_2002.asp Ellipses are as in Brush's article. Brush's source was
Victorian Science, by Basalla, Coleman and Kargon, eds., 1970, Garden City NY, Anchor Books, pp. 125-127.
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 06-06-2004 06:34 PM
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 06-06-2004 06:36 PM
™ Version 4.2
