IBRI Research Report #57 (2006)
ABSTRACT
The development of modern
geology in the early 1800s challenged traditional Biblical
interpretation in a way that no other advance in science had.
Over the centuries, there had been many philosophical challenges to
Biblical revelation -- the nascent higher criticism of the
Biblical text, and many Christian and secular world views as
(then) recent examples -- but these are all based on
philosophical particulars that cannot be refuted objectively. Never
before had such an extensive, sustained and comprehensive assault on
tradition been fortified with such an abundance of irrefutable
factual data, which could be tested and affirmed by all, even
those with radically clashing world views. How, then, did devout
Christians process this challenge? This paper describes the responses
of
a number of contemporary writers who held firmly to the divine
inspiration of the Biblical text -- including prominent British and
American geologists and theologians of the period. |
DISCLAIMER
I have tried to be accurate in the statement of
scientific fact,
but it is possible, perhaps likely, that some factual errors have crept
in. I would appreciate any corrections of factual errors. Please email
them to me at dcb@ps-19.net.
In particular, I solicit additional citations to work available over
the
internet, that may supplement or clarify some of the matters discussed.
-- DCB
|
EDITOR'S NOTE
Although the author is in agreement with the doctrinal statement of IBRI, it does not follow that all of the viewpoints espoused in this paper represent official positions of IBRI. Since one of the purposes of the IBRI report series is to serve as a preprint forum, it is possible that the author has revised some aspects of this work since it was first written. |
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 19th century
science –
in fact, I run a web site with that name, where I post a number of
books from
the period.[5]
The
19th 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 19th 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 19th
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 19th 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 19th
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 7th
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 19th 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 4th 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.
Name |
Dates |
Field
|
Writings
|
Agassiz, Louis |
1807-1873 |
Geology |
†† Contributions to the Natural
History of the United
States of America (1860); †† Principles of Geology (1863) |
Blakewell, Robert |
?? |
Geology |
Introduction to Geology (1833) |
Buckland, William |
1784-1856 |
Theology, Geology |
†† Bridgewater
Treatise, Vol. VI.: Geology and Mineralogy
Considered with Reference
to Natural Theology (1835) |
Chalmers, Thomas |
1780-1847 |
Theology |
[Endorsed Gap Theory, lectures 1803-4];
Bridgewater Treatise - On
the power, wisdom and goodness of God as manifested in the adaptation
of external nature to the moral and intellectual constitution of man
(1833); On Natural Theology (1847) |
Chambers, Robert |
1802-1871 |
Biology |
** Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) |
Conybeare, Wm. Daniel |
1787-1857 |
Theology |
†† Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales
&c. (1822) |
Cuvier, Georges |
1769-1832 |
Geology |
†† Discourse on the Revolutions of the Globe (1822) |
Dana, James D. |
1813-1895 |
Geology |
†† Manual of Geology 4th Ed. (1862-1896) |
Darwin, Charles |
1809-1882 |
Geology Biology |
Origin of Species (1859) |
De la Beche |
1796-1855 |
Geology |
Report on the Geology of Cornwall, Devon, and West
Somerset (1839) |
Figuier, Louis |
1819-1894 |
Geology |
†† The World Before the Flood (1872) |
Geikie, Archibald |
1835-1924 |
Geology |
†† Geological Sketches At Home and Abroad (1882); †† Text-Book of Geology (1902) |
Haeckel, Ernst |
1834-1919 |
Geology |
†† The History of Creation: Or The Development of the
Earth and Its inhabitants by the action of Natural Causes (1876) |
Hitchcock, Charles |
1836-1919 |
Geology |
†† Elementary Geology (1855) |
Hitchcock, Edward |
1793-1864 |
Theology, Geology |
<>Geological Map of Massachusetts (1833); †† Elementary Geology (1855) †† Religion of Geology and its Connected Sciences (1851); |
Humboldt, Alexander von |
1769-1859 |
Geology |
†† Cosmos: A Sketch of a Physical Description of the
Universe (1845) |
Hutton, James |
1726-1797 |
Geology |
Theory of the Earth (1785; 1795). The article
published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. I
(1788) is available on line at |
King, David |
1806-1883 |
Theology, Geology |
†† The Principles of Geology Explained (1851) |
Lamarck, Jean Baptiste |
1744-1829 |
Geology |
Historie Naturelle Des Animaux Sans Vertébres
(1815) |
Lyell, Charles |
1797-1875 |
Geology |
<>†† Principles of Geology (1832); †† Elements of Geology (1838); †† The Antiquity of Man (1863) |
Mantell, Gideon Algernon |
|
Theology, Geology |
<>Wonders of Geology (1840), †† Medals of Creation (1844) |
Miller, Hugh |
1802-1856 |
Geology |
<>†† The Footprints of the Creator (1851);
†† Sketchbook of Popular Geology (1855); †† Testimony of the Rocks, or Geology in its Bearings on the Two Theologies, Natural and Revealed. (1855). |
Murchison, Roderick Impey
|
1792-1871 |
Geology |
The Silurian System (1839) |
Owen, Richard |
1804-1892 |
Geology |
Key to the Geology of the Globe (1857) |
Paley, William |
1743-1805 |
Theology, Biology |
++ Natural Theology (1802, 1st Ed.). |
Phillips, William |
1775-1828 |
Geology |
†† Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales
&c. (1822) |
Playfair, John |
1748-1819 |
Geology |
Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth
(1802) |
Sedgwick, Adam |
1785-1873 |
Geology |
A Discourse on the Studies of the University (1835) |
Smith, John Pye |
1774-1851 |
Theology |
†† On the Relation between the Holy Scriptures and
Some Parts of Geological Sciences (1840) |
Smith, William |
1769-1839 |
Geology |
A New Geological Map of England and Wales (1818) |
Suess, Eduard |
1831-1914 |
Geology |
†† The Face of the Earth (1883) |
Werner, Abraham Gottlob |
1750-1817 |
Geology |
A treatise on the external characters of fossils.
(1805) |
Winchell, Alexander |
1824-4891 |
Geology |
†† Sketches of Creation (1870): A
Popular
View of
Some of the Grand Conclusions of the Sciences in reference to The
History of Matter and of Life; †† Walks and Talks in the Geological Field (1886) |
[1] I use the term “geologist” to mean a person who has a deep and active “hands-on” interest in geology. Many of the early geologists were amateurs, in the sense that geological pursuits were not their main vocation. This number included a remarkable number of clergy. The work of many such “amateurs” contributed mightily to advance the science.
[2]
Edward Hitchcock, Religion
of Geology (1851), p. 38.
[3]
John Pye Smith, On
the Relation between the
Holy Scriptures and some parts of the Geological Science.(1840) p. 20.
[4] Hugh Miller, Testimony of the Rocks, p. vii.
[5] See http://www.19thcenturyscience.org.
Many of the references cited in this paper are posted at http://www.geology.19thcenturyscience.org.
[6]
The discovery of tectonic
plate movement is an example of how geology (by necessity) became
complex. This
solved the puzzling problem of the movement of large land masses. The
massive
work of Eduard Suess in the late 1800s provided the basic groundwork
for the
final solution, which was not generally accepted until the mid 1900s.
Suess
coined the name Gondwana Land for the original landmass which evolved
into the
present continents. His major work is The Face of the Earth.
Suess’ work is particularly interesting for the almost painfully
detaiiled (but very
readable) logical analysis of massive amounts of observations worldwide
to
determine the details of how landmasses moved in the earth’s past.
[7] William Smith
(1769-1839).
[8] See a narrative of this in
IBRI RR#53: David C. Bossard, Geology Before Darwin at http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR053/53geology_19thC.html
.
[9] Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, p. 243 “It is a moderate estimate to say, that two-thirds of the surface of our existing continents are composed of fossiliferous rocks; and these often several thousand feet thick.”
[10] Abraham Gottlob Werner
(1750-1817) was a professor at Freiberg Mining Academy in Germany from
1775.
[11] James Hutton (1726-1797).
Considered by some to be the Father of modern geology. Wrote Theory
of the
Earth (1785
and 1795), subsequently featured and popularized in John Playfair
(1748-1819), Illustrations
of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth (1802).
[12] For the record, I do not
minimize the importance of theoretical work, which was the focus of my
own
career in mathematical modeling and computer simulation. But there is
nothing
so powerful and compelling as objective facts, such as William Smith
revealed
to the world. In my view the theory of evolution is at this stage. It
is a
theory that needs more objective data. The National Academy of Sciences
(See Teaching
about Evolution and the Nature of Science,
National Academy Press, 1998, p. 56 “Is
evolution a fact or a theory?”) howls when creationists suggest this,
because
they think that such a statement appeals to a popular nonscientific
prejudice
against “theories.” But in my view there is much of evolutionary theory
that
was set at a time when the modern insights into biology and genetics
were
unknown, and the strong tendency was to under-appreciate the vast
complexity in
molecular genetics. If I were a student today, contemplating a career
in
science, I would consider the fields of evolutionary biology and
genetics as very
promising areas for modeling and computer simulation, with the
objective to
explore the limits and laws of natural development. In this regard, see
my
remark on the trilobite phacops schizochroal eye in David C. Bossard, Abundant
Life: The Diversity of Life in the Biosphere, IBRI
Colloquium lecture (2001). The
printed text is not available on the web, but the audio lecture can be
heard at
http://www.ibri.org/MP3/IC-0103.mp3.
[13] Cuvier remarked,
[15]
Modern advocates of a
recent creation allow the
age of the earth up to 10,000 years or more to allow for gaps in the
genealogy
between Adam and Noah.
[16]
Buckland, Bridgewater
Treatise, Vol. VI. The bulk
of Buckland’s work is to offer proof of design as evidenced in the
fossil
record. He illustrates his view with many examples of exquisite design
– for
example, in the Nautilus and Ammonite siphuncle which regulates the
buoyancy of
the animal (p. 317 ff).
[19]
Edward Hitchcock, Elementary
Geology
(1860), p. 383 “Three classes of men have
written
concerning the connection between geology and religion. The first class
are
professed believers in revelation; but they do not suppose the Mosaic
record to
be inspired and infallible as to history of science; and hence they are
not
surprised to find discrepancies and absurdities in what they regard as
a myth
or fable of the creation. The second class are firm believers in the
Bible, but
not in geology, which they consider so unreliable that it ought not to
be taken
into account at all in the interpretation of Scripture. The third class
believe
in the divine inspiration and authority of every part of the Bible; but
they
admit also the great principles of geology, and think the two records
not only
reconcilable, but that they cast mutual light upon each other, and that
geology
lends important aid to some of the most important truths of
revelation. With this last class our
views coincide entirely, and we regard it as useless in this work to
describe
the theories by which the other classes attempt to sustain their views,
since
the authority of the Bible is destroyed by the first, and the settled
principles of science ignored by the second.” See
also Hugh Miller Testimony
p. 344.
[20]
Those who believed
that the Genesis account is
mythical, or who have an anti-supernatural views, have
no difficulty with the Genesis Creation account or its
interpretation, because they do not view it as authoritative.
[21]
St. Augustine, The
Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated
and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J.,
Paulist Press, 1982: Volumes 41 and 42 of Ancient Christian Writers. Introduction: “The
days of creation, he suggests, are
not periods of
time but rather categories in which the creatures are arranged by the
author
for didactic reasons to describe all the works of creation, which in
reality
were created simultaneously.” Cf. also Book Four,
Chapter 34 “All things
were made
both simultaneously and in six days.”
[22] St. Augustine, ibid. For the history of his
writings on Creation, see the Introduction to volume 41. In citing Augustine, it is
important to realize that his views evolved over time. Regarding his
views on
creation, Literal Meaning
is the most mature of his writings on the
subject, and should have precedence over earlier views he may have
expressed.
[23] “Augustine distinguishes literal or proper meaning from allegorical, prophetic, or figurative meaning. The literal meaning tells what actually happened; the allegorical, prophetic, or figurative meaning tells what the events foreshadow or typify.” Introduction to Literal Meaning of Genesis, p. 9.
[24] For an example of the
deep use of figure in language, see Raymond Adolph Prier, Thauma
Idesthai:
The Phenomenology of Sight and Appearance in Archaic Greek (1989).
[25] Edward Hitchcock, Religion of Geology, Chapter 1: “Revelation may describe phenomena according to apparent truth, as when it speaks of the rising and setting of the sun, and the immobility of the earth; but science describes the same according to the actual truth, as when it gives a real motion to the earth, and only an apparent motion to the heavens. Had the language of revelation been scientifically accurate, it would have defeated the object for which the Scriptures were given; for it must have anticipated scientific discovery, and therefore have been unintelligible to those ignorant of such discoveries. Or if these had been explained by inspiration, the Bible would have become a text-book in natural science, rather than a guide to eternal life.”
[26] Augustine, Op. cit., Book Two, Chapter 16.
[27] This, incidentally,
contradicted the views of many ancient philosophers who held that
matter is
eternal. It also contradicted the (then) contemporary view that the
elements
never change (the notion of fixed chemical formulas for all compounds,
expressed in terms of the unchangeable elements was quite new at this
time),
which some took to mean they were eternal. The fact that matter and the
universe had a beginning was not universally accepted until the 1950s.
The
eternity of matter is an example of a theoretical point on which
reasonable men
could disagree at that time. There is a curious but illuminating
instance of
this misunderstanding about the unchangeable elements that may be worth
remarking. In defending the inspiration of the Bible, Buckland
commented on the
passage about the future “day of the Lord” in 2 Peter 3:10-12 “the
heavenly
bodies will be burned and the elements will melt with fervent heat;
both the
earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”
the
"destruction" is not of the earth
but of matter on the earth. He explains, "The common opinion is, that
intense combustion actually destroys or annihilates matter... But the
chemist
knows that not one particle of matter has ever been thus deprived of
existence;
that fire only changes the form of matter, but never annihilates it."
[Buckland, 1837, p. 304]
It
is now known that the elements can in fact “burn up” and in fact that
is one of
the processes that fuels the stars.
[28]
Hitchcock, Geology
of
Massachusetts, p. 395: “If I
understand Geology
aright, so far from teaching the eternity
of the
world, it proves more directly than any other Science can, that its
revolutions
and races of inhabitants had a Commencement, and that it contains
within itself
the chemical energies, which need only to be set at liberty, by the
will of
their Creator, to accomplish its destruction.”
[29] Early geologists thought that the earth’s history was characterized by occasional catastrophic events that resulted in the formation of mountains and other surface features. Hence Cuvier’s 1804 book title The Revolutions of the Earth. Charles Lyell’s books, the Principles and Elements of Geology, written in the 1830s and updated in many editions over the next decades, argued convincingly with extensive factual documentation, that despite appearances, the earth’s features are the result of ages-long movements that slowly changed the face of the earth. The past and present are governed by the same uniform set of laws and processes. Later geologists accepted this uniformitarian concept, which replaced catastrophism as the explanation of the earth’s past. In the late 1800s Eduard Suess carried on this work in The Face of the Earth, which set the groundwork for the modern tectonic plate theories.
[30] Hitchcock, Elementary Geology (1860), p. 94 “The basis of nearly all correct reasoning in geology, is the analogy between the phenomena of nature in all periods of the world's history: in other words, similar effects are supposed to be the result of similar causes at all times. This principle is founded on a belief in the constancy of nature; or that natural operations are the result of only one general system, which is regulated by invariable laws.”
[31]
For an alternative
interpretation of this passage,
see David C. Bossard, A Physicist Looks at Creation Day One, IBRI Research Report 51,
2003, available at the IBRI website. The view expressed in
this report is similar to Augustine's updated, of course, to
reflect modern cosmology.
[32] The fossils contained in the strata indicate by their specific species, whether the land was dry or submerged, and whether submerged land was under fresh or salt water.
[33] An alternate view that still holds to literal days allows gaps of arbitrary length between the creation days. I do not recall seeing this specific view spelled out in the geology books of the period, but it is a present-day view of some.
[34]
Hugh Miller, Testimony
of the Rocks, p. 160 “Day
One = azoic (pre-Cambrian); Day Two =
Silurian &
Old Red; Day Three = carboniferous period (great plants); Day Four =
Permian
and Triassic period; Day Five = Oolitic and Cretaceous periods (great
sea-monsters and birds); Day Six = Tertiary period (great terrestrial
mammals)."
[35]
Actually, the
narrative specifies fruited plants
with seeds – i.e. the angiosperms, the most recently created division
of
land
plants, which arrived in the geologic record long after the first land
plants.
[36] Many at the time
understood that the genealogies of the Bible may contain gaps – that
“fathers”
or “sons” may skip generations. So many did not take the Ussher
chronology as
the final word.
[37]
In Principles,
Lyell argued against the evolutionary
views of Lamarck:
In
later years, after the appearance of Darwin’s Origin of Species, Lyell modified these
views (see the following note).
37a See, for example, Charles
Lyell, The Antiquity of Man,
pp. 385-424.
[38]
John Pye Smith, [247]
“To
those who have studied the phraseology of Scripture, there is no rule
of
interpretation more certain than this, that universal terms are often
used to
signify only a very large amount in number or quantity.”
[40]
Buckland [103] “no
conclusion is more fully established, than the important
fact of the
total absence of any vestiges of the human species throughout the
entire series
of geological formations.”
[41] Humboldt in Cosmos (1858) states “[358] While we maintain the unity of the human species, we at the same time repel the depressing assumption of superior and inferior races of men. There are nations more susceptible of cultivation, more highly civilized, more ennobled by mental cultivation than others, but none in themselves nobler than others. All are in like degree designed for freedom.”
[42] Here are some quotations:
Rev.
John Pye Smith (on the age of the earth) [295]
“persons
who have spent thirty, forty, even fifty years in laborious
investigation; many
of them, having set out with the opinion of the [young age
of the
earth]; who
have personally explored all the most important districts in the
British isles,
in France, in the Alpine countries, in Germany, and in Eastern and
Northern
Europe; also, in Asia, North and South America, and many parts of
Africa and
Australasia; who have endured herculean toils in the field of personal
labour;
expending large sums of money in their travels for this very object;
who have
come to geological investigations well prepared by mathematical and
chemical
science; who have pursued those investigations with untiring
perseverance, and
with the severest jealousy against precipitate conclusions: and what
answer do
THEY give? With one mouth they say, NO; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
[43]
Hitchcock, The
Religion of Geology, p. 72 [T]he
Bible
does not inform us whether the death of the
inferior animals and plants is the consequence of man's transgression.
...[G]eology proves violent and painful death
to have existed in the
world long
before man's creation. ... [P]hysiology
teaches us that death is a
general law
of organic natures. It is not confined to animals, but embraces also
plants.
...[I]n such a system as exists in the world,
this universal decay and
dissolution are indispensable. For dead organic matter is essential to
the
support and nourishment of living beings.
[44] Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, p. 244: The first scientific account of fossil footmarks, was in 1828...In 1836, the first description was given of the tracks in that most prolific of all localities, the valley of Connecticut river...so many other localities have been discovered in Europe and America, that scarcely any fossiliferous formation is now without its footmarks.
[45]
Hitchcock, The
Religion of Geology, p. 103ff. there is nothing in the
Mosaic account of the
deluge which would necessarily lead us to expect permanent marks of
such a
catastrophe within or upon the earth. First, most of the cases of
accumulations
of drift, occurred previous to man's existence upon the globe, and
cannot have
been the result of Noah's deluge.
Secondly. No remains of man or his works have been found in drift, nor
indeed
till we rise almost to the top of the alluvial deposit.
[46]
Ibid., [110]
[T]he facts of geology forbid the idea that
our present continents
formed the
bed of the ocean at so recent a date as that of Noah's deluge, and that
the
supposition that all organic remains were deposited during the two
thousand
years between the six days' work and the deluge is totally
irreconcilable with
all correct philosophy…. [The Deluge] could
not have deposited the
fossil
remains in the rocks. This position is too plain to the practical
geologist to
need a formal argument to sustain it.
[47] John Pye Smith [136] “We
cannot represent to ourselves the idea of [the animals]
being brought
into one
small spot, from the polar regions, the torrid zone, and all other
climates;
their preservation and provision; and the final disposition of them –
without
bringing up the idea of miracles more stupendous than any that are
recorded in
Scripture, even what appear appalling in comparison.”
[48]
See Hitchcock op. cit. p. 72.
[49]
John Pye Smith, [247]
“To
those who have studied the phraseology of Scripture, there is no rule
of
interpretation more certain than this, that universal terms are often
used to
signify only a very large amount in number or quantity.”
[50] Hitchcock, Religion of Geology, [Regarding the age of the earth] p. 68 “it always produces a temporary evil to change the interpretation of a passage of the Bible, even though, as in this case, it be the result of new light shed upon it; because it is apt to make individuals of narrow views lose their confidence in the rules of interpretation. But when the change is once made, it increases men's confidence in the Word of God, which is only purified, but not shaken, by all the discoveries of modern science. In the present case, it does not seem to be of the least consequence, so far as the great doctrines of the Bible are concerned, whether the world has stood six thousand, or six hundred thousand years. Nor can I conceive of any truth of the Bible, which does not shine with at least equal brightness and glory, if the longest chronological dates be adopted.
[51] Books 4 and 5 of Augustine, Literal Meaning of Genesis. His discussion is complex, but it appears that days concern phases of creation rather than specific days. Augustine noted that the narrative has a stylized structure with 3 days of formation followed by 3 days of fulfillment. Cf. Introduction, p. 9 “The days of creation, he suggests, are not periods of time but rather categories in which creatures are arranged by the author for didactic reasons to describe all the works of creation, which in reality were created simultaneously.”
[52] Miller, Testimony, p. 135 "Had there been human eyes on earth during the Palaeozoic, Secondary, and Tertiary periods, they would have been filled in succession by the great plants, the great reptiles, and the great mammals... I ask whether the Mosaic account of creation could be rendered more essentially true than we actually find it, to the history of creation geologically ascertained.... The inspired writer seized on but those salient points that, like the two great lights of the day and night, would have arrested most powerfully, during these periods, a human eye...." p. 140: “The geological facts … lead me to believe that the days of the Mosaic account were great periods, not natural days.”
[53] Miller, Testimony, p. 155 “If the revelation [of the Creation narrative] was by vision, that circumstance affords of itself a satisfactory reason why the description should be optical: and, on the other hand, since the description is decidedly optical, the presumption is of course strong that the revelation was by vision.” p. 160 “...We thus get this very important rule of interpretation, viz. that the representations of pre-human events, which rest upon revelation, are to be handled from the same point of view, and expounded by the same laws, as the prophecies and representations of future times and events, which also rest upon revelation.”
[55]
Buckland (1837) states,
[p.
61, 413] “Beginning with the
animal kingdom, we find the four great existing divisions of
Vertebrata,
Mollusca, Articulata, and Radiata, to have been coeval with the
commencement of
organic life upon our globe.…all of the four existing great Classes of
the
grand Division of Articulated animals, viz. Annelidans, Crustaceans,
Arachnidans, and Insects, and many of their Orders, had entered on
their
respective functions in the natural world, at the early Epoch of the
Transition
Formations.”
[57]
Hitchcock, Elementary Geology,
p. 373,
“Inference 6 -- The changes which the
earth has
experienced, and the different species of organic beings that have
appeared,
were not the result of any power inherent in the laws of nature, but of
special
Divine creating power."
“In all the more
than 30,000
species
of organic remains dug from the rocks, they are just as distinct from
one
another as existing species, nor is there the slightest evidence of
some having
been developed from others. The gradual introduction of higher races is
perfectly explained by the changing condition of the earth... For the
most part
the new races were introduced by groups, as the old ones died out in
the same
manner. New groups were introduced at once...There is decisive evidence
that in
many cases during the geological periods, animals, instead of
ascending, descended
on the scale of organization from the more to the less perfect.”
See also David King, p. 103ff.
[58]
David King, Principles of
Geology
Explained, p. 184ff
[59]
Hugh
Miller (1802-1856), Sketchbook of Popular Geology, 4th Ed. 1869, Preface p. xxx.
The Sketchbook was edited and
published
posthumously by his wife, Lydia Miller.
[60] St. Augustine, op. Cit. Book 1 Ch. 19. p. 42.
Last updated: October
5, 2005