Derech Hamelech – like I said,I knew he attempts to answer it. The emphasis there is on the word attempts. It isn’t really all that convincing an answer. As for why, I think I said so in my first post, but have a look at what I’m about to write to 2scents for further clarification… Also, please note R’ Saadia Gaon’s rule about logic vs. revelation (although the Kuzari argues, he is very much a da’as yochid in this respect as far as rishonim go) which is that if we have a question as to whether or not something that may be revelation is correct when it contradicts logic, we follow logic as HKB’H gave us logic to determine whether or not revelation is accurate (in other words, the only reason we believe in any revelation is because it is logical to do so, otherwise we’d end up beleiving every novi sheker around [see further Rambam hilchos dei’os for further elucidation, especially regarding novi sheker]).
However, I’m not entirely even sure where this revelation about the age of the planet is. I can’t find it in my chumash anywhere…
2scents – I’m not entirely sure what your reply means. How are fossils that appear to be extremely old but aren’t not misleading? The fact that you may be privy to knowledge about the age of the planet does not mean that someone who sees these artifacts without that knowledge will not be misled.
Further, some knowledge of history and science would do you a little bit of good. So I’ll let you in on a secret. Darwin believed in G-d. In fact, at one point, he trained to be a priest. His theory of natural selection was not intended to explain the origin of life, simply speciation (how we have many species and not one prototype of each animal) and was arrived at, not by wishful thinking, but by nearly 20 years of research. Natural selection, though the basis for evolution, is not actually the same thing. Furthermore, the people who were most against Darwin at the time of his publication were scientists, not clergy. The church were quite happy to accept it at first. Now, micro-evolution is something that can be seen pretty much every day – bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics for example – the scientific discussion is purely to do with macro-evolution. And there is considerable debate even within the scientific community there, though they won’t admit it. Regardless, the existence of dinosaurs and fossils has nothing to do with evolution, fossils had been discovered and dinosaurs named and exhibited before the publication of ‘On the Origin of Species’.
Got all that?