Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic

[bunny]

Well here is the post I was quoting earlier. I think their claim is just too strong when they write:

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, life must have arisen in the tiny span of 40 million years (3.9 billion minus 3.86 billion = 40 million), probably less. Naturalism offers no explanation for such a rapid appearance of life.

[/ QUOTE ]
It states 40 million years as a fact, when it is really a much more hazy guess (and there's no justification for saying "probably yes" - it seems they are acknowledging errors in their calculations which work in their favor but not those which may work against their thesis.) It also seems that they are falling into the trap of thinking that the lack of explanation for a new discovery implies that an explanation will never be found - the tone of that quote reads to me like "naturalist explanations are doomed in trying to account for this fact" when in fact (even ceding their timeframe and the complexity of the lifeforms existing at 3.86 billion years ago) all it says is that if the "soup" origin of life is correct, it must have happened quickly.

I'm also trying to pin them down on how they have determined just how advanced the life is - they make vague reference to photosynthesis having to have occurred and that this therefore implies complexity, yet concede that the life forms found approximately 3.86 billion years ago were single cell organisms. Do you happen to have a reference covering this complex single celled organism?