Why should the enlightened Christian, who has a correct idea of the firm foundation on which the Bible rests, fear that any disclosures of the arcana of nature should shake its authority or weaken its influence? Is not the God of revelation the God of nature also?

Edward Hitchcock (1851)^[2]

It is a fearful thing to array science and religion against each other...Men who have well studied the questions at issue, and who know the evidence of those geological facts to which such strong exception is taken, cannot by any possibility be brought to renounce their convictions.

John Pye Smith (1840)^[3]

I have been described as one of the wretched class of persons who teach, that geology, rightly understood, does not conflict with revelation.

Hugh Miller (1855)^[4]

For a number of years I have indulged a fascination with 19^th century science – in fact, I run a web site with that name, where I post a number of books from the period.^[5]

The 19^th century was a golden age of science – as viewed from the eye of a practitioner. It was an exciting time to work as a scientist. Empirical science had shaken off the restraints and bad habits of medieval times. Newton’s remarkable work and the arrival of the microscope and telescope opened the door to vast new vistas. And things had not yet become too complicated! Until late in the century, it was still possible to have a comprehensive understanding of entire fields of work such as chemistry, biology, physics and astronomy.

There is nothing so fascinating as being in on the ground floor of a new science. And there were many opportunities for that in the 19^th century. When I look back on my career, I feel enormously blessed to have experienced the very beginnings of the computer age. I recall reading an autobiography of Chuck Yeager, the famous test pilot. When asked in the 1980s if he was envious of the new generation of test pilots, he shook his head no. Test pilots now, he said, can’t fly seat-of-the-pants. Things are too complicated. They are almost totally dependent on engineers for their safety. When he flew, he flew by instinct. His instincts were good, and he trusted them. You can’t use instinct any longer.

I think I know what Chuck Yeager was saying, and I agree. The 19^th century was golden because the scientists of the day were close enough to the beginnings that things hadn’t yet gotten too complex. It was a marvelous time to exercise true empirical science, a time when skilful practitioners forged the outlines of new sciences based on observations and logical analysis, playing Sherlock Holmes with the observable facts to forge them into daring conclusions, which could be tested and challenged.

Geology is a science that calls upon all sorts of other disciplines – all branches of chemistry, biology, physics and astronomy. So as the century proceeded, it got very complex and specialized – but at the beginning it was not that way.^[6]

I am sure some scientists would howl in protest at the claim that geology began at this specific time – after all, didn’t the teachings of great geologists such as Werner^[10] and Hutton^[11] precede this? But here is the pivotal point: Werner and Hutton proposed theoretical explanations for the earth’s present form. Around 1800 there were two theoretical schools of geology: the Neptunists or Deluvianists (water was the main engine of change) and the Vulcanists or Plutonists (fire – heat – was the main engine of change). There were rational arguments for each position, and scientists were lined up on each side.

But the era introduced by William Smith was qualitatively different. William Smith didn’t propose theories, he made claims that could be objectively tested and verified.^[12] He showed that the earth’s rocks contain a detailed record of the earth’s past.^[13] You could take or leave Werner’s and Hutton’s theories, or balance them against your own favorite theory. But it is hard to dispute the observable facts revealed by William Smith. Of course there is some level of interpretation to William Smith’s findings, and you are certainly welcome to make your own interpretations. But the language of the rocks is very factual and concrete, and if you propose an interpretation, there are thousands of ways that your interpretation (or William Smith’s) may be supported or refuted. And – this is the peculiar power of the truly empirical sciences – the same facts that you base your interpretation upon can be verified and multiplied by any competent scientist regardless of his own views on the matter. And they were. Over the next forty years, the work of William Smith was duplicated, confirmed, and expanded by hundreds of scientists worldwide, in an astonishing explosion of knowledge. What William Smith had found to be true about the geology of the British Isles, proved to be equally true worldwide, in a remarkable harmony in the message that the rocks and strata convey.

The direct implications of William Smith’s geology were seen almost immediately. First, that the earth is demonstrably old^[14] – much more than the 6 thousand years or so implied by the common understanding of the Genesis creation account.^[15] Second, that the geologic strata emphatically could not be the result of a global deluge, as the common understanding of the Genesis flood account would have it.^[16] Over the next few decades these implications would be fortified with a vast amount of corroborating material, to the point that, by the 1840s no thinking person who had a deep understanding of the facts of geology as they were then known, could doubt that the earth is very old, and that the strata cannot have been laid down by a global noachian flood.^[17] A number of devout Christian geologists of the time, expressed these conclusions in just this definitive, absolute way.^[18] The question is – and this is what we will consider – how did they then maintain their high view of Scripture?

This empirical basis for William Smith’s geology forged a dilemma for many practicing Christians of his day, because the findings challenged the common interpretation of the Biblical text. The Christians that I am interested in here were those who had a high view of the inspiration and accuracy of the Biblical account, a view that I myself share.^[19]  These Christians did not believe that the Old Testament accounts are hoary myths, or folklore, but that they are accurate written records of the events that they describe.^[20] But the geological record seemed to contradict many of the assumed interpretations of these accounts, particularly the creation account in Genesis 1-3 and the flood account in Genesis 6-8. What to do? As scientists, they could not disregard the clear evidence of geology, and as devout Christians, they could not deny the foundations of their faith. This is what we will explore.

Now it should be understood that throughout the Christian era, long before the dawn of the age of science, the creation and flood accounts were singled out as puzzling, and there are many ways that they were understood. For example, Saint Augustine, back around 400 A.D. devoted a major part of his writing to the meaning and interpretation of the Genesis accounts. He puzzled over statements like “and the earth was without form and void,” and the question of how the “days” of creation were to be understood – regarding “days”, his puzzlement was why God, who is not bound by time, should take any time at all, and his own solution was that the whole creation occurred in an instant; I leave it to your curiosity to puzzle out how he then ended up with seven days.^[21] Over his life, Augustine returned to these issues at least three times, the most recent being The Literal Meaning of Genesis.^[22]

One of the things Augustine struggled with was whether the Genesis account was to be understood allegorically or literally. In his day, a number of Christian theologians put a lot of effort into reading the Bible allegorically, and Augustine, at first, was among that number. But later, he put aside attempts to see allegorical meaning, and concentrated on the literal meaning of the text. I should note, however, that some of his “literal” meanings seem to be a bit figurative, but that’s another story. Augustine uses the term “literal” to mean ‘a faithful record of what happened …according to the plain meaning of the historical facts’.^[23]

The fact is, what one means by “literal” in any human language, which by its very nature consists of figurative and allusive words, is itself a deep question.^[24]  

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine tried to reconcile his understanding of science with the interpretation of the Genesis account. Despite the primitive and largely fallacious science of his day, he had, in my view, the instincts of a true scientist, and a genuine interest in proper scientific inquiry, and as a result he was very bothered by theologians who would make interpretations that seem nonsense to scientists. There are a number of famous quotes from him along these lines. Among the rules of interpretation that he held to are these:

• That the Bible was written so as to be understandable by the author's contemporarys.^[25]

• That the viewpoint of the Biblical writer is from the perspective of a person standing on earth, and not from the perspective of one viewing the earth from the heavens, or some other location. For example, in discussing the question, “Are the sun, moon, and stars of equal brightness?” he remarks,"They differ in glory to the eyes of men on earth," so the question of which is in actuality “greater” or “lesser” or whether they are equal, is not the point.^[26]

Augustine saw that many of the particular passages in Genesis could be understood in a number of ways, and he was careful to lay out alternative interpretations without endorsing a particular one as the “only” way to see it.

So at the beginning of the 19^th century, orthodox Christians, at least the educated theologians among them, understood that the Genesis accounts could be seen in a number of ways. Reasonable people could disagree on the particulars, and similarly, reasonable persons in the attempt to maintain unity and fellowship could defer to another person’s authority in areas of legitimate doubt.

But, as Tevye asked in Fiddler on the Roof, “How far can you make a man bend over backwards before he breaks?” Does geology push Christian geologists to the breaking point? These geologists believed not, and that is what we want to consider.

There was a more-or-less universal set of understandings, based, it was thought, on the most direct reading of the Biblical text. A brief summary might be this:

(1)   The material world had a definite beginning. Matter is not eternal. ^{[27] [28]}

On this point geologists generally agreed. The geologic record definitely indicates in the azoic rocks, which underlay all of the fossil-bearing strata, that life had a beginning, and knowledge of the figure of the earth (oblate spheroid) implied that the earth itself was at one time a molten mass. In this the geologists departed from the earlier view of Hutton and Playfair that the geological record has “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.”

(2) The primordial world arose out of a state of chaos (“without form and void”).

As we noted earlier, this expression from Genesis 1:2 can be interpreted in various ways. Some early 19^th century theologians and geologists (Thomas Chalmers, John Pye Smith, William Daniel Conybeare, William Phillips, William Buckland) took it to indicate a gap of indefinite extent between the creation of the “heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1 and the start of the creation week. Later geologists (Edward and Charles Hitchcock, Hugh Miller) questioned the gap, noting that the geological record has no indication of a catastrophic event^{[29] [30]} – presumably resulting in the state of chaos – in the period just before the modern species of animals, plants and humans appear. By implication, this would move the period of chaos to an earlier time – perhaps as the earth was formed.^[31]

(3) The primordial world was covered with water, out of which God “gathered” dry land.

On this point geologists generally agreed. There is abundant geological evidence that the continents were at one time under water – in some cases, as in Europe, the landmass was alternately raised and submerged multiple times.^[32] The modern view is that the primordial earth was completely covered with oceans and that the landmass that ultimately formed the continents rose out of the water over a period of more than a billion years, literally “floating” on a molten mantle of dense basalt rock.

(4) Creation occurred in a creation week of 6 literal 24-hour days with the 7^th day, the Sabbath, a day of rest.

The early geologists generally held to literal days (Thomas Chalmers, Conybeare, Buckland, Pye Smith). It is likely but not always clear that they assumed the days were back-to-back.^[33] To maintain this position, they held to a primordial “gap” in which the geological column was laid down, and took the creation days to refer to a re-creation of life. Later geologists generally abandoned literal days, notably Hugh Miller who suggested that the days were “prophetic”, arguing that the language reads like a visual account in much the same way that some prophecies are understood – picking out highlights, telescoping time, and passing over other details. In Testimony of the Rocks he relates the creation days to geologic ages,^[34] as if Moses were looking back over all of earth history as in a prophetic vision, and recording creation as the visual highlights. Other geologists, however, believed that this correspondence with geologic ages was imperfect at best.

(5) There was no protracted development of the plants and animals:

a.    Land plants were created on day 3.^[35]

b.   Sea creatures and birds were created on day 5.

c.    Creatures “that move along the ground” were created with Man created last of all, on day 6.

The geological record flatly contradicts the view that humans were created within mere days of the creation of the plants and animals, unless one holds the view of some geologists that the creation week refers to a local creation of a human habitat. In this view, the geological record relates to a totally separate, protracted creation of the world’s plants and animals that is not mentioned in the Genesis account.

(6) The Creation account concerns the whole of creation, not just a localized part of it.

See the remarks above about a “local” creation.

(7) The Creation account, combined with the subsequent history of mankind recorded in Genesis (even allowing for gaps in the genealogy) implies that the earth is at most a few tens of thousands of years old.^[36]

The geological record flatly contradicts this (see below).

(8) All plant and animal life was created to reproduce “after its kind.” (the fixity of species).

Many early geologists accepted this view, as long as “kind” was interpreted to mean something more general than specific species and varieties. Adherents would include most geologists through the 1830s, including Charles Lyell (who generally did not make comments in the line of natural theology)^[37]. The very real gaps in the fossil record, and particularly gaps in the periods of renewal following catastrophes (for example, between the primary, second, tertiary eras), were viewed by many geologists as marking new direct creations by God. Among later geologists there was, however, expressed a kind of adaptation – in fact Hitchcock and others made the point that the environment determined the kind of animals created in a given era.^[57]  Several geologists (Hitchcock, Miller, Agassiz, Dana and Geikie in their earlier years) argued against the concept that “progressive development” was a purely naturalistic thread through the entire creation process. This view was held by Robert Chambers and the biologist Lamarck. After Darwin’s publication of Origin of the Species  in 1859, the “progressive development” concept rapidly overwhelmed or ignored the objections of the early geologists, until in the end even former adherents as Lyell, Dana and Geikie, gave it at least lip service.37a

(9) Before Adam’s fall there was no death, because death was a punishment for Adam’s transgression.

This is flatly contradicted by all biological and geological evidence. A number of geologists wrote at length about this view (Pye Smith, Hitchcock, Miller).

(10)      The terms “all”, “every”, “the whole” in the Flood account are universal, not just local. Thus the flood was over the “whole” earth.

A number of the natural theology books written by geologists address this issue (Pye Smith, Buckland, Hitchcock, Hugh Miller) .^[38]

(11)      The ark rescued every “kind” of animals, not just a small selection; by implication, all animals subsequently radiated from Ararat throughout the earth after the flood.

Geological and biological evidence show that the species variations worldwide are inconsistent with the view that all animals radiated out from a localized area of the globe since the flood – there just isn’t enough time to generate that amount of speciation after the flood. Further, the number of species worldwide is far more than could be accommodated on the ark. If it is assumed that “kind” represents a significantly higher taxonomic level than species (family or genus), then the speciation in the time since the flood would not be sufficient to produce the present diversity.

Some authors resolved issues with the flood narrative by asserting: (a) the Noachian flood was a local flood; (b) the animals included on the ark were domestic and game animals that were of economic value to humans; (c) that the flood may have been associated with a raising or lowering of the land mass in the Ararat region. See Miller, Hitchcock.

It should be noted that the consensus of science before about 1800 did NOT contradict these eleven points. Just as prior to the time of Copernicus, the scientific consensus did not indicate that the Ptolemaic model of the universe was wrong. It is exceedingly unfair to poke fun at the theologians or scientists of these times for interpreting the Bible in the most direct possible way – after all, that is entirely in the spirit of Occam’s Razor. Only when the evidence clearly and unequivocally pointed in another direction, could it be reasonably hoped that Bible interpretation would change. In 1550, even after Copernicus published de Revolutionibus, I would probably have sided with the Ptolemaic world view – for one thing, the Copernican model left a number of important things dangling unresolved: the concept of inertia, for example, had not been either experimentally or theoretically explained. Galileo, whose experiments proved inertia, would not be on the scene for another century. In 1800, at the time that the science of geology began, the objective arguments for an extremely old age for the earth were still in the future, and again, there was little reason, in my view, to change the traditional interpretation of Scripture. However factual evidence would pour in at an incredible pace, and overwhelming evidence against this traditional interpretation would be developed.

We can summarize the response of geologists to the prevailing Biblical interpretation under 4 headings:

Natural Theology in the 19^th Century

The publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 marks a significant change. After 1859, the treatment of natural theology by prominent geologist greatly diminishes, and most of what is said is by holdovers from the previous era – such as Louis Agassiz, and James Dana.

Of course, there was very much written about natural theology by Christian apologists who were opposed  to  the attempts to harmonize geology with the Bible, but we will not go into that here. 39a

Points of Agreement between the Geological and the Prevailing Biblical Interpretation.

As we already noted, many of the early Christian geologists remarked that there are many points on which the two accounts agree:

1.   Both state that life on earth had a beginning. The geological record indicates a blossoming of life on earth from an initial lifeless condition.

2.   Both state that dry land emerged from the oceans.

3.   In both, plants flourished on land before land animals

4.   In both, fishes and birds precede land animals.

5.   In both, humans appear last of all.^[40]

6.   In both, humans derive from a single “Eve”^[41]

7.   In both, human civilization radiates from the vicinity of the Near East.

8.  Both agree that humans are qualitatively distinct from all other living species.

Things that the Geological Record Does Not Allow.

1.   The Earth is very old, certainly far older than the few thousands or tens of thousands of years that the traditional interpretation of the Biblical creation account allows.

2.   Death was a universal, and essential, attribute of life on earth long before humans were created. There was never a time when death was not the norm.^[43]

3.   The individual geological strata were generally formed under tranquil conditions over very long periods of time.^[44] They are emphatically NOT remnants of a noachian deluge.^{[45] [46]}

4.   Noah’s ark did NOT contain every "kind" of animal.^[47]

5.   All animals on earth did NOT radiate from a single point on earth, following a noachian deluge.

6.   Plants and animals were NOT created in the same literal week with humans.

7.   (Consensus after the 1840s) The face of the earth was NOT formed primarily as a result of violent “revolutions” as Cuvier assumed, but rather it was formed principally under tranquil conditions extending over vast ages of time.

The Basis for Reconciliation

It should be emphasized that many of the prominent geologists prior to mid-century were theologically trained, and thoroughly familiar with Greek and Latin, and some had some acquaintance with Hebrew as well, so they could make valid comments on theological points of interpretation of the Biblical text.

1.   The Bible does not state that there was no death prior to Adam’s transgression, contrary to the traditional view.

Buckland, Pye Smith and others make this argument.^[48]

2.   Universal words “all”, “every”, etc. may have restricted meaning, not global in the absolute sense, as proved by many clear Biblical examples.^[49]

3.   The word “day” is not restricted in Scripture to 24 hour days.

4.   The Creation account in Genesis does not require that all of the events occurred without gaps or a pause.

5.   The Creation account is not an exhaustive account of the creation of all life.

At a minimum, the Genesis account does not discuss the creation of micro-organisms (for obvious reasons).

Reconciliation.

Our interest is in the views among Christian geologists who held to a high view of Biblical inspiration. These geologists only made changes in their interpretation when they were convinced that the geological data required it.

It is clear that their views evolved over time – as shown by their own writings or citations by later writers. It is also clear that they had a certain reluctance to make changes – and so only made them when the need for a viewpoint change became abundantly clear. Edward Hitchcock remarked that “It always produces a temporary evil to change the interpretation of a passage of the Bible.”^[50]

1.  Creation account.

Consensus: Old earth, life existed long ages before Adam’s creation, death was a universal principle of life.

a.    Early view (prior to 1840)

Early geologists generally accepted a “revolutions” account of the past history of the earth.

                                                     (1).     Literal 24-hour creation days

Buckland remarked that the text did not require this interpretation, but that it was consistent with the geological evidence as he understood it.

                                                       (2).     Creation of fossil species before creation week.

                                                        (3).     Gap between creation of heavens and earth and first day.

Identified with “Without form and void” in Genesis 1:2.

                                                        (4).   Global re-creation during creation week (some authors were not explicit on this).

b.   Later view (after 1840)

Later geologists generally accepted a “uniformitarian” account of the past history of the earth, in response to the work of Sir Charles Lyell.

                                                     (1).     Some: Creation days are extended periods of time

1.   Topical, selective days (this reverts to Augustine^[51])

2.   Days relate to geologic ages (Miller’s “prophetic days”^{[52] [53]})

This correlation is selective, not perfect.^[54]

                                                    (2). Some: Account is local creation of Eden.

                                                    (3). Account concerns only a small part of the creation of life.

                                                    (4). No geological evidence for a recent "gap".

2.  Flood account.

Consensus: Most Geologic Strata are NOT formed by a deluge. There is evidence of occasional local deluges throughout geologic history. Most plants/animals worldwide are specialized to their own locale, with a clear genetic relationship with local fossils. They could not have radiated from a single locale within modern time – the human race is an exception to this rule.

a.    The Noachian flood was a local deluge.

                                                     1.     It included the entire human race at the time.

                                                      2.     Some: Correlated with the rise/fall of the region of Ararat.

b.   The ark held only some (local) “kinds” of plants/animals. 

                                                     1.     Some: Limited to Domestic animals and wild game animals.

                                                      2.     The limited time since the noachian deluge does not allow for much speciation, hence the “kinds” are limited to genus or species – not families or higher.

3.  Progressive Development (Evolution)

a.    Before 1859:

Prior to the appearance of Darwin’s Origin of Species, most geologists (with the notable exception of Robert Chambers) accepted the following principles.

                                                     1.     All major body plans (Mollusca, Radiata, Articulata, Vertebrata) appear together in the earliest fossil strata (Cambrian era).^[55]

                                                      2.     The fossil record has no Classes that are not also found among present-day plants and animals.^[56]

                                                       3.     Major transitions between strata are characterized by annihilation and sudden appearance of totally different species.

                                                       4.     The fossil record within a stratum indicates that species have a strictly limited range of natural variation, regardless of the duration the age represented by a given stratum.

                                                       5.     Plant and animal varieties appear to respond to environmental changes, rather than some internal mechanism for change. No major “innovations” appear within a stratum, but only between strata separated by major environmental changes.

                                                    6.   The geologic record shows a regression in complexity from the earlier species, rather than a progression as one would expect. Cuvier, Buckland, Hitchcock and other geologists noted this point. ^[56a]

In his 1860 book Elementary Geology, Hitchcock specifically excludes natural laws as the engine of speciation.^[57] 

David King talks about “truths in zoology” which apparently favor transmutation, but which collapse under close scrutiny.^[58]

b.   After 1859:

After 1859, the “old guard” geologists (Agassiz, Hitchcock, Dana) continued to hold out, but little is written on “Natural Theology.” Such discussions are evidently considered beyond the purview of geological writers. Dana, in the 4^th edition of his Geology (1894 — shortly before his death), (reluctantly?) includes natural evolution in his text, which previously he had held out against in prior editions.

Lydia Miller, the widow of Hugh Miller, remarked as follows on the change that took place after 1859:

“I must confess that I was at first startled and alarmed by rumours of changes and discoveries which, I was told, were to overturn at once the science of Geology as hitherto received, and all the evidences which had been drawn from it in favour of revealed religion. Though well persuaded that at all times, and by the most unexpected methods, the Most High is able to assert Himself, the proneness of man to make use of every unoccupied position in order to maintain his independence of his Maker seemed about to gain new vigour by acquiring a fresh vantage-ground. The old cry of the eternity of matter, and the 'all things remain as they were from the beginning until now,' rung in my ears. God with us, in the world of science henceforth to be no more! The very evidences of His being seemed about to be removed into a more distant and dimmer region, and a dreary swamp of infidelity spread onwards and backwards throughout the past eternity.”

Lydia Miller, 1869^[59]

This quote, which comes from the preface to Hugh Miller’s  Sketchbook of Popular Geology, sets the scene for our discussion. The statement comes just 10 years after the appearance of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Already in that short time, the mood of geology had shifted dramatically from a wide concensus that noted strong evidence for God’s handiwork in creation, to a naturalistic view that saw no need for God — as Lydia Miller wrote, “God with us to be no more.” The dreary swamp of infidelity seemed to flood the landscape, so soon after many prominent scientists had declared that the evidence of geology strongly points to the work of a creator.

Lydia Miller expressed the consternation that must have been shared by many of these geologists: had new changes and discoveries indeed so altered the landscape?  What had they missed in their so-careful analysis of geological data — done, by the way, amidst hostile opposition from all sides, and thus carefully, carefully crafted (or so they thought)? In the end, Lydia remarked that, no, they had not missed the mark; the evidence is still the same; it has not changed: it is only being ignored and brushed away.

“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?”

St. Augustine (416 A.D.)^[60]

The result can hardly help but fulfill the sad remarks of St. Augustine, and cause the Gospel message to appear not only morally distasteful but also scientifically and logically impossible to many sincere, educated and thinking unbelievers.  But for the grace of God, which is abundant and active,  the church would surely falter. But it will not fall. God is greater than  any  opposition to his proclamations, by friend or foe. Glory be to his name, forever more. Amen.