SCRIPTURE IN THE
HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS
(PART
TWO)*
III. Concordism
1.
Neptunism
WE next trace the history of the concordist tradition. In
general,
concordists were more empirically minded
than
literalists and were willing to adopt more flexible inter-
pretations of Scripture in
order to harmonize with a devel-
oping scientific
picture of terrestrial history. The concordist
tradition
began with neptunism and came into full flower in
the
nineteenth century.
Although diluvialism
diminished by the end of the eigh-
teenth century, other
geological theories existed that could
also
be harmonized with Scripture. During the eighteenth and
earliest
nineteenth centuries one widely held theory, devel-
oped primarily in
to
the
naturalists
the neptunist approach was the best way to explain
the
features in rocks. Where efforts were made to correlate
neptunism with biblical
data, the writers often showed little
conviction
regarding the truth of Scripture. Interpretations
of
biblical texts were generally far less literalistic than those
of
British diluvialists and were put forward in order to
main-
tain peace with the
theologians. When transported into Great
* [Part One, which appeared in WTJ 49 (1987) 1-34, surveyed the history
of
literalism in the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis by Christian
geologists.
Part Two, focusing on the concordist tradition,
concludes Dr.
Young's
essay.-Ed. ]
91 Some British neptunists, for example, Robert Jameson, learned their
neptunism at the feet of
the German scholar, Abraham Werner.
with
the same zeal evident among earlier diluvialists. For
Brit-
ish neptunists,
neptunism was obviously what the Bible taught.
The major tenet of neptunism
was that the original earth
had
been completely covered by the sea. As time elapsed, the
sea
diminished and landmasses emerged. Life gained a foot-
hold
on the landmasses and in shallow marine areas. The
emerged
landmasses were eroded, and the erosion products,
including
the remains of organisms, accumulated as fossili-
ferous sediment layers
on the seabottom and on the flanks
on
the landmasses. To neptunists the observation that
clearly
marine
stratified rocks rested on older primitive mountains
was
striking evidence that the world had emerged from a
universal
ocean. In a refined, late eighteenth to early nine-
teenth century version
of neptunism developed by the great
German
geologist, Abraham G. Werner,92 the universal ocean
was
an aqueous solvent saturated with dissolved chemicals.
As
the ocean diminished the chemicals precipitated. Thus
many
layered and crystalline rocks were interpreted as chem-
ical precipitates
from the primeval ocean.
We examine here the harmonizations
of two neptunists,
Benoit
de Maillet and Richard Kirwan.
Benoit de Maillet was
the
French ambassador to
culture.93
During his wide travels he observed European ge-
ology and concluded
that rock strata had formed during grad-
ual diminution of the ocean. He also
concluded that the
diminution
had continued for an incredibly long time, perhaps
as
much as two billion years.94 He believed
that the human
race
had existed for at least 500,000 years, that men had
originated
in the sea, and that mermaids were creatures that
hadn't
quite made the transition to human status.95 These
views
were couched within a Cartesian cosmology that favored
the
eternity of matter. Recognizing that such views would not
92 Werner was a brilliant teacher
and approached geology in a very sys-
tematic fashion so that
he provided what appeared to be a logical way of
ordering
the disparate facts then known to geology. Through the brilliance
of
his teaching, Werner attracted able students to the mining academy of
98 Benoit de Maillet,
Telliamed
(Urbana: University of Illinois, 1968). This
edition
is an English translation with notes by A. V. Carozzi.
94 Ibid., 181.
95 Ibid., 158, 192-200.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 259
be
popular with the Roman Catholic Church in
Maillet presented his
views as conversations between a French
missionary
and an Indian philosopher, Telliamed (de Maillet
spelled
backwards), who espoused the diminution of the sea.
The
work was published anonymously as Telliamed in the early
eighteenth
century.96
To gain acceptability, de Maillet, through the mouth of
Telliamed, claimed that
long-continued diminution of the
ocean
was compatible with Scripture. Because of his com-
mitment to an extremely
old earth and the possibility of the
eternity
of matter, de Maillet argued
that the sentence, ‘In the beginning God
created the Heavens and Earth,’
is a very improper translation of the
Hebrew, that the words used in that
language signify only ‘formed the
Heavens and the Earth.’ Furthermore,
the word ‘create’ is a new term,
invented only a few centuries ago to
express a new idea; therefore your Bible
assumed the preexistence of matter
when God formed the heavens and the
earth.97
Even
the diminution of the ocean accorded with the creation
account.
Said de Maillet, speaking through the French mis-
sionary pondering Telliamed's ideas:
God could indeed have used such means
for the creation of the earth and
the formation of the mountains through
the action of the waters of the
sea. The separation of the waters from
the earth, as mentioned in Genesis,
is even in favor of such an opinion. The
void which first occurred on the
earth and the uselessness of the latter
at the beginning correspond to the
same conditions postulated by our author
for the initial stage of the globe.
It is obvious, if not unquestionable,
that the waters of the sea have built
the mountains and uncovered through
their diminution what they had
formed during the first chaos of matter.
This emergence led to the growth
of grass and plants on the rocks; the
vegetation in turn led to the creation
of animals for which they represent the food
supply; and finally the animals
led to the creation of man who depends
on them, as the last work of the
hands of God.98
The sequence of earth history seemed
compatible with
Scripture,
but what of the problem of days if one were to
postulate
that the earth was approximately two billion years
old?
Telliamed was ready for this difficulty:
96 See the editor's introduction
(ibid., 1-53) for a discussion of early manu-
scripts
of Telliamed.
97 Ibid., 161.
98 Ibid., 234.
260
The expression ‘six days’ mentioned in
your sacred books for the com-
pletion of all these
works is metaphorical, as you may easily imagine. It
cannot even represent the time mentioned
by Moses during which the
earth rotates on itself six times in its
annual orbit around the sun, since
according to these same books, the sun
was not created until the fourth
day. Besides, do they not state that a
thousand of your years represent no
more than one day for God? Therefore, we
must conclude that the six
days employed by the Divinity to
complete creation indicate a length of
time much longer than the measure corresponding
to our ordinary days.99
Unlike de Maillet,
Richard Kirwan, an Irish chemist and
mineralogist,
was a devout, orthodox Christian. For Kirwan,
geology
was the handmaiden of true religion, and he repeat-
edly expressed alarm
at systems of geology that struck him
as
favorable to atheism. In 1797, Kirwan set forth his
con-
ception of biblical
geology.100 In typical Wernerian fashion,
Kirwan believed that
the earth at creation was covered by an
"immense
quantity" of aqueous fluid heated enough to dis-
solve
enormous quantities of chemicals. As the ocean re-
treated
from earth's surface, crystallization of minerals took
place,
and a tremendous amount of heat was released, trig-
gering "an
enormous and universal evaporation."101 The in-
tensity of the heat
increased until much of the primordial
chemical
precipitate burst into flames. Volcanic eruptions oc-
curred on the
"bosom of the deep.”
The teaching of Gen 1:2 that the
original earth was without
form
and void meant "that the earth was partly in a chaotic
state,
and partly full of empty cavities, which is exactly the
state
... I have shewn to have been necessarily its primordial
state."102
The deep or abyss "properly denotes an immense
depth
of water, but here it signifies ... the mixed or chaotic
mass
of earth and water."103 The spirit of God moving on the
face
of the waters referred to "an invisible elastic fluid, viz.
the
great evaporation that took place soon after the creation,
as
soon as the solids began to crystallize."104 Kirwan appealed
99 Ibid., 231.
100 Richard Kirwan,
"On the
Catastrophe,"
Transactions of the
101 Ibid., 245.
102 Ibid., 265.
103 Ibid.
104 Ibid., 266.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 261
to
Psalm 104 where the standing of the mountains above the
waters
alluded to the emergence of the primitive mountains
above
the receding neptunist ocean. The reference in Ps
104:5
to
God's "fixing the earth on its basis, from which it shall not
be
removed for ever" denoted "the deposition of the solids
contained
in the chaotic waters, on the solid kernel of the
globe,
from whence they should never be removed nor indeed
have
they ever since."105
After this episode, light was created,
and the "production
of
light ... probably denotes the flames of volcanic erup-
tions."106
The firmament of the second day of creation was
the
atmosphere, formed by the evaporation of the waters of
the
deep. Lastly, the creation of fish and other organisms
occurred
only after the great deep had receded, precipitated
its
chemicals, and cooled. Neptunists maintained that
fossil
remains
occurred almost exclusively in mechanically depos-
ited rocks that were
clearly superimposed on top of chemically
precipitated
rocks.
Kirwan believed that surficial gravels, erratic boulders, and
many
cave deposits were the result of the flood. The major
source
of floodwater was from caverns in the earth that had
gradually
filled during retreat of the primeval ocean. During
the
flood the waters "were miraculously educed out of those
caverns."107
Since the universal ocean had once
covered all
the
mountains of the earth, there would be sufficient water
in
the caverns to cover the mountains once more. Kirwan
specified
that the floodwaters surged out of the south and
overflowed
the northern continents, for it was on the northern
continents
that the vast deposits of surficial gravels, erratic
boulders,
and bone-filled cave deposits were recognized.108
2.
Nineteenth Century Concordism-
Genesis 1
By about 1830, both diluvialism
and neptunism had been
rejected
by the practicing geological community. Numerous
discoveries
pointed toward a long, complex, dynamic earth
105 Ibid.
106 Ibid., 267.
107 Ibid., 279.
108 Ibid., 280.
262
history
that was totally incompatible with a global flood, and
newer
studies in the early nineteenth century indicated that
rocks
formerly interpreted as chemical precipitates from a
universal
ocean had cooled from intensely hot liquids injected
into
the overlying fossil-bearing strata.109 Stratigraphic evi-
dence also made it
clear that the ocean had repeatedly ad-
vanced on and
retreated from the landmasses: it had not
simply
retreated uniformly. Moreover, successive advances
and
retreats had been accompanied by significant extinctions
of
large quadrupeds. Neptunism, like diluvialism,
rightly fell
by
the wayside. Although both diluvialism and neptunism had
temporarily
provided useful frameworks for integrating the-
ories of earth
history with the meager data available at the
time
and had served as stimuli to further geological research,
the
time had come for them to be discarded. Diluvialism
and
neptunism could no longer
adequately account for the wealth
of
geological data that were known by the early nineteenth
century.
The recognition of the earth's vast
antiquity caused little
alarm
among leading British and American Christian geolo-
gists of the early
nineteenth century. Many of the great ge-
ologists of that era
were devout and enthusiastic Christian
believers
who were fully committed to the infallibility of Scrip-
ture. Thus, even
though Scripture played a diminishing role
in
professional technical geology, many geologists developed
popular
treatments of ways in which the results of geology
could
be related to biblical teaching. Many of these geologists
sought
to demonstrate how Scripture was fully compatible
with
the latest discoveries of geology. The golden age of
concordism had arrived.
Two major schemes of harmonization were
developed and
refined
during the nineteenth century: these were the gap and
day-age
interpretation of Genesis 1. The modern version of
the
gap theory was probably first advocated by the great Scot-
tish minister and
amateur devotee of science, Thomas Chal-
109 Of particular importance here
was the work of James Hutton as spelled
out
in his Theory of the Earth (
that
numerous layers of basalt, a rock that neptunists
claimed had been
precipitated
from the ocean, could be traced to several extinct volcanic cones
in
central
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 263
mers.110
Following his lead, several prominent Christian
geologists,
including Englishmen William Buckland and Adam
Sedgwick
and American Edward Hitchcock, espoused the gap
theory
as the preferred method for correlating Genesis and
geology.
There was relatively little difference among these
geologists
in their use of that theory. The major point in
common
was the interpretation of Gen 1:2. For the first time
the
"chaos" of that verse was not regarded as a primordial
chaos
of any kind but as a chaos that developed long after
the
initial creation of the planet.
William Buckland attempted a synthesis
between geology
and
Genesis in his inaugural lecture at Oxford.111 He ex-
pressed
the opinion that "the word 'beginning,'
as applied to
Moses
in the first verse of the book of Genesis.... [ expresses ]
an
undefined period of time, which was antecedent to the last
great
change that affected the surface of the earth, and to the
creation
of its present animal and vegetable inhabitants; dur-
ing which period a long series of
operations and revolutions
may
have been going on."112 Later in his career, Buckland
stated
that "it is nowhere affirmed that God created the heaven
and
the earth in the first day, but in the beginning; this beginning
may
have been an epoch at an unmeasured distance, followed
by
periods of undefined duration, during which all the physical
operations
disclosed by Geology were going on."113 In sup-
port
of this notion Buckland appealed to several church fa-
thers who maintained
that the work of the six days of creation
did
not begin until Gen 1:3. He further suggested that "mil-
lions
of millions of years may have occupied the indefinite
interval,
between the beginning in which God created the
heaven
and the earth, and the evening or commencement of
the
first day of the Mosaic narrative."114 This long period of
time
between verses one and two was the supposed gap of
110 For the original quotation
from Thomas Chalmers, see Hugh Miller,
The Testimony of
the Rocks (Boston:
Gould and Lincoln, 1857) 141.
111 William Buckland, Vindiciae geologicae (Oxford:
University Press, 1820).
112 William
Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy
Considered with Reference to Natural
Theology (London: Wm.
Pickering, 1837). Buckland's work is the sixth of the
113 Ibid., 21.
114 Ibid., 21-22.
264
the
gap theory. Of the second verse of Genesis 1 Buckland
commented:
we have in this second verse, a distinct
mention of earth and waters, as
already existing, and involved in
darkness; their condition also is described
as a state of confusion and emptiness, (tohu bohu), words
which are usually
interpreted by the vague and indefinite
Greek term, "chaos," and which
may be geologically considered as
designating the wreck and ruins of a
former world. At this intermediate point
of time, the preceding undefined
geological periods had terminated, a new
series of events commenced, and
the work of the first morning of this
new creation was the calling forth of
light from a temporary darkness, which
had overspread the ruins of the
ancient earth.115
This new creation, following upon the
great catastrophe,
was
described in the work of the six days. The new creation
brought
the earth into its present condition and could there-
fore
properly be described as a re-creation or reconstruction
of
the earth. Thus the gap theory also became known as the
ruin-reconstruction
theory. The days of Genesis 1 were as-
sumed to be ordinary
24-hour days, although Buckland was
not
opposed to thinking of them as longer stretches of time.
To
avoid having the entire world immersed in total darkness,
devoid
of vegetation, and devoid of animals at the conclusion
of
the catastrophe, some proponents of the theory, notably
John
Pye Smith,116 suggested that the ruin and
reconstruction
were
localized in the middle eastern area that was the birth-
place
of modern humanity.
As geology developed during the
nineteenth century, Chris-
tian geologists
became less enthusiastic about the ability of
the
gap theory to achieve a satisfactory harmony with Scrip-
ture. Increasingly
they turned to the day-age theory. The idea
that
the days of creation could be interpreted as periods of
time
was not new. De Maillet had long since suggested that
the
days were metaphorical. His suggestion had been adopted
by
the great French naturalist Buffon and by many early nine-
teenth century
geologists such as James Parkinson, Robert
Jameson,
and Benjamin Silliman. It was not until mid-nine-
115 Ibid., 24-26.
116 John Pye
Smith, The Relation between the Holy
Scriptures and some Parts of
Geological
Science
(5th ed.;
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 265
teenth century,
however, that day-age concordism became a
fine
art and achieved a high degree of refinement and subtlety.
The most eloquent of the great day-age concordists was the
Scottish
ecclesiastical journalist, onetime stonemason, and
amateur
paleontologist-geologist, Hugh Miller. Miller's ma-
ture thought on the
relationship of geology to the Bible is
spelled
out in his great work The Testimony of
the Rocks. 117 Miller
completely
rejected the gap theory on the basis of its total
incompatibility
with geology. Geology had made it plain that
there
was no "age of general chaos, darkness, and death"
separating
the modern era from past geological ages.118 In-
deed,
"all the evidence runs counter to the supposition that
immediately
before the appearance of man upon earth, there
existed
a chaotic period which separated the previous from
the
present creation."119
Miller contended that the drama of
creation had probably
been
revealed to Moses in a series of visions in much the
same
way that God had revealed the pattern of the tabernacle
on
the mount. Moses saw "by vision the pattern of those suc-
cessive pre-Adamic creations, animal and vegetable, through
which
our world was fitted up as a place of human habita-
tion."120 This series of
visions revealed "successive scenes of
a
great air-drawn panorama."121 These visions were then de-
scribed
by Moses optically. In other words, "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."122
The visions were described and presented
in the format of
the
six days. Unlike others who also held to the vision hy-
pothesis, Miller did not
remove the days from the province
of
chronology by restricting them to the province of prophetic
vision.
Instead, he maintained,
we must also hold, however, that in the
character of symbolic days they
were as truly representative of the
lapse of foregone periods of creation
117 Hugh Miller, Testimony.
118 Ibid., 155.
119 Ibid.
120 Ibid., 190.
121 Ibid., 196.
122 Ibid., 171.
266
as the scenery itself was representative
of the creative work accomplished
in these periods. For if the apparent
days occurred in only the vision, and
were not symbolic of foregone periods,
they could not have been trans-
ferred with any
logical propriety from the vision itself to that which the
vision represented, as we find done in
what our Shorter Catechism terms
‘the reason annexed to the Fourth
Commandment.' The days must have
been prophetic days, introduced, indeed,
into the panorama of creation
as mayhap mere openings and droppings of
the curtain, but not the less
symbolic of the series of successive
periods, each characterized by its own
productions and events, in which creation
itself was comprised.123
The
six days were small replicas of the vast periods presented
in
the visions of Genesis 1, and, in answering the common
objection
to the day-age theory based on the fourth com-
mandment, Miller used
the scale-model analogy. "The Divine
periods
may have been very great,-the human periods very
small;
just as a vast continent or the huge earth itself is very
great,
and a map or geographical globe very small. But if in
the
map or globe the proportions be faithfully maintained,
and
the scale, though a minute one, be true in all its parts
and
applications, we pronounce the map or globe, notwith-
standing
the smallness of its size, a faithful copy.”124
Miller suggested that Genesis 1
represented a prophecy of
the
past. This notion provided a key to the interpretation of
the
text. Just as historical fulfillment is the best interpreter of
revealed
prophecies which point to events in the prophet's
future,
so the historical fulfillment of a backward-looking
prophecy
is the best way to interpret it. That fulfillment is
provided
by science.
In what light, or on what principle,
shall we most correctly read the pro-
phetic drama of
creation? In the light, I reply, of scientific discovery,-on
the principle that the clear and certain
must be accepted, when attainable,
as the proper exponents of the doubtful
and obscure. What fully developed
history is to the prophecy which of old
looked forwards, fully developed
science is to the prophecy which of old
looked backwards.125
In
Miller's judgment the geology of his day was sufficiently
developed
that much light could be shed on the events of
several
of the days of creation, just as the well-developed
astronomy
of his day could shed light on the character of day
123 Ibid., 205-6.
124 Ibid., 176.
125 Ibid., 194.
SCRIPTURE
IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 267
four.
He didn't think that geology was sufficiently advanced
that
the work of days one and two could be specified with
confidence.
Thus Miller focussed on days three, five, and six
as
those to which geology could contribute the most, but he
also
attempted a preliminary explanation of the other three
days.
The first and second days of creation
were represented by
rocks
of the "Azoic period, during which the immensely de-
veloped gneisses, mica schists, and primary clay slates, were
deposited,
and the two extended periods represented by the
Silurian
and Old Red Sandstone systems."126 During this time
the
earth's surface and its primitive ocean may have gradually
cooled
so that the primitive, thick, cloudy atmosphere became
less
dense. Eventually the rays of the sun struggled through
and
strengthened "until, at the close of the great primary
period,
day and night,--the one still dim and gray, the other
wrapped
in a pall of thickest darkness,--would succeed each
other
as now, as the earth revolved on its axis, and the unseen
luminary
rose high over the cloud in the east, or sunk in the
west
beneath the undefined and murky horizon."127 On the
second
day, attention was focussed on atmospheric phenom-
ena. To the prophetic eye absorbed
in the vision such phe-
nomena would have
attracted far more attention than the
appearance
of invertebrate life of the Silurian period or the
fish
of the Old Red Sandstone period. Such events would have
been
"comparatively inconspicuous" to the prophet.
Of days three, five, and six Miller was
more confident. The
vision
of day three was more "geological in its character" than
days
one or two. "Extensive tracts of dry land appear, and
there
springs up over them, at the Divine command, a rank
vegetation.
And we know that what seems to be the corre-
sponding Carboniferous
period, unlike any of the preceding
ones,
was remarkable for its great tracts of terrestrial surface,
and
for its extraordinary flora."128 The Carboniferous period
was
characterized by "wonderfully gigantic and abundant veg-
etation."129
The fourth day, devoted to astronomical
features,
126 Ibid., 196.
127 Ibid., 198.
128 Ibid., 200-201.
129 Ibid., 201.
268
was
identified with the Permian and Triassic periods geolog-
ically.
The fifth day was linked with the
Oolitic130 and Cretaceous
periods.
The grand existences of the age,--the
existences in which it excelled every
other creation, earlier or later, were
its huge creeping things,--its enor-
mous monsters of the
deep,--and, as shown by the impressions of their
footprints stamped upon the rocks, its
gigantic birds.... Its wonderful
whales, not, however, as now, of the
mammalian, but of the reptilian class,-
ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and cetiosaurs,--must have tempested
the
deep.... We are thus prepared to
demonstrate, that the second period of
the geologist was peculiarly and
characteristically a period of whale-like
reptiles of the sea, of enormous
creeping reptiles of the land, and of
numerous birds, some of them of gigantic
size; and, in meet accordance
with the fact, we find that the second
Mosaic period with which the
geologist is called on to deal was a
period in which God created the fowl
that flieth
above the earth, with moving [or creeping] creatures, both in the
waters and on the land, and what our
translation renders great whales, but
that I find rendered, in the margin,
great sea monsters.131
Day
six was equated with the Tertiary period. Although "its
flora
seems to have been no more conspicuous than that of
the
present time; its reptiles occupy a very subordinate place;
but
its beasts of the field were by far the most wonderfully
developed,
both in size and number, that ever appeared upon
earth."132
Another prominent advocate of the
day-age theory was Ar-
nold Guyot, a Swissborn geographer and
geologist who spent
most
of his professional career at
was
a committed Christian completely convinced of the an-
tiquity of the earth.
He sought to work out a harmonization
between
Scripture and geology, and a series of early lectures
ultimately
resulted in the issue of Creation.133 Although Guyot
recognized
that the main point of the Bible was "to give us
light
upon the great truths needed for our spiritual life,"134
nonetheless
the "antique document" agreed in its statements
with
the science of his day. In fact the "history of Creation
130 The Oolitic
was the equivalent of what today is referred to as the Jurassic
period
(system).
131 Ibid., 161.
132 Ibid., 162.
133
134 Ibid., 4.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 269
is
given in the form of a grand cosmogonic week, with
six
creative
or working days."135 The
problem for Guyot was to
demonstrate
the coincidence of the sequence of events out-
lined
by geology with the sequence of events outlined in
Genesis
1.
Guyot devoted far
more attention to the "cosmological"
and
"astronomical" parts of Genesis 1 than had Miller. For
Guyot Gen 1:2
referred to matter in its primitive condition.
The
term "earth" (‘eres)
"is an equivalent for matter in gen-
eral," and was
the "primordial cosmic material out of which
God's
Spirit, brooding upon the waters, was going to organize,
at
the bidding of His Almighty Word, the universe and the
earth."136
Similarly, the "waters" over
which the Spirit
brooded
referred "to the gaseous atmosphere; it is simply
descriptive
of the state of cosmic matter comprised in the
word
earth."137 These were
the same cosmic waters mentioned
in
Ps 148:4. Once it was recognized that "earth" and "water"
referred
to primordial matter Gen 1:2 became clear.
The matter just created was gaseous; it
was without form, for the property
of gas is to expand indefinitely. It was
void, or empty, because apparently
homogeneous and, invisible. It was dark,
because as yet inactive, light being the result of the action of physical and
chemical forces not yet
awakened. It was a deep, for its expansion in space,
though indefinite, was
not infinite, and it had dimensions. And
the Spirit of God moved upon the
face ... of that vast, inert, gaseous
mass, ready to impart to it motion, and to direct all its subsequent activity,
according to a plan gradually revealed by
the works of the great cosmic days.138
As the great gaseous mass began to move,
light developed
and
the waters were separated. But Gen 1:6-7 was not re-
ferring to anything as
ordinary as the clouds in the sky. Rather
the
work of the second day referred to the organizing of the
heavens.
"The vast primitive nebula of the first day breaks
up
into a multitude of gaseous masses, and these are con-
centrated into
stars."139 Thus the
nebulous masses (galaxies)
of
outer space were the heavens of heavens, that is, the waters
135 Ibid., 11.
136 Ibid., 35-36.
137 Ibid., 36.
138 Ibid., 38.
139 Ibid., 63.
270
above
the heavens. In contrast, our own immediate celestial
neighborhood
consisting of the sun, moon, and nearby stars
were
the waters below the heavens. The firmament, by im-
plication, meant the
vastness of space between our own nebula
and
those at a far distance.
By the third day the earth was like a
cooling star. Chemical
interactions
within its atmosphere and ocean produced a lu-
minous glow or
"photosphere" like that of the sun. The glow
diminished
as the earth cooled and became more suitable for
life.
Only the simplest plant forms could appear under these
conditions.
Guyot wanted to postpone the development of
complex
plants until day five, but Genesis said that plants
appeared
on the third day. To deal with this problem, Guyot
said,
Is this position of the plant in the
order of creation confirmed by geology?
If we should understand the text as
meaning that the whole plant kingdom,
from the lowest infusorial
form to the highest dicotyledon, was created at
this early day, geology would assuredly
disprove it. But the author of
Genesis, as we have before remarked,
mentions every order of facts but
once, and he does it at the time of its
first introduction. Here, therefore,
the whole system of plants is described
in full outline, as it has been
developed, from the lowest to the most
perfect, in the succession of ages;
for it will never again be spoken of in
the remainder of the narrative.140
Thus
Guyot introduced the idea that the events of the six
days
might overlap one another.
The appearance of the heavenly bodies on
day four had
nothing
to do with an ex nihilo creation at
the time. They
"existed
before, and now enter into new relations with the
earth."141
Because the earth was self-luminous due
to chemical
action
during its early stages, the light of the sun, moon, and
star
was "merged in the stronger light of its photosphere, and
therefore
invisible to it. But after the disappearance of its
luminous
envelope, our glorious heavens with sun, moon, and
stars
become visible, and the earth depends upon this outside
source
for light and heat."142
140 Ibid., 89-90.
141 Ibid., 92.
142 Ibid., 93.
271
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF
GEOLOGISTS
Guyot correlated day
four with the production of Archean
rocks.143
On day five, Paleozoic and Mesozoic
rocks were de-
posited
with their contained fossils, and on the sixth day
Tertiary
rocks were deposited. The boundary between the
Cretaceous
and Tertiary periods was thought to occur at the
juncture
between days five and six. There was an important
difference
between Miller and Guyot in the correlation of
geological
events with the days. Miller had assigned day three
to
the Carboniferous period in the latter part of the Paleozoic
era,
while Guyot did not even begin the Paleozoic era
until
day
five. Table II compares the two correlation schemes with
each
other and with that of
of
the great nineteenth century North American geologist,
James
Dwight Dana of
to
that of Guyot.144
One of the major concordistic
works of the nineteenth cen-
tury was The Origin of the World According to
Revelation and
Science145 by J. William Dawson, a great Canadian
geologist
from
arguments
for his conclusions and scientific interpretations
of
a variety of correspondences between Scripture and ge-
ology.
periods
of time of indeterminate length. His major argument
centered
on the nature of the seventh day. He assumed that
absence
of the formula "the evening and the morning were
the
seventh day" was an indication that the seventh day had
not
yet terminated. The notion was further supported by
appeal
to the continued rest of God in Hebrews 4 and to the
nature
of God's working on his Sabbath day in John 5.
also
maintained that the lack of rain in Gen 2:5 indicated that
143 The term Archean
is typically applied by geologists even today to the
oldest
known rocks. Such rocks generally underlie other rocks and are typ-
ically though not
always metamorphic and igneous rocks. Some of the strat-
ified Archean rocks contain fossil remains of primitive
one-celled organisms.
144 See, for example, James
Dwight Dana, "Creation, or the Biblical Cos-
mogony in the Light of
Modern Science," BSac
42 (1885) 201-24.
145 J William Dawson, The Origin of the World according to
Revelation and Science
(London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1898).
272
TABLE II
Correlation
Schemes of Major Nineteenth-Century Day-Age Concordists
Miller Guyot
Day
one Azoic period, Atmosphere
clearing of
cloudy clears
atmosphere
Day
two Silurian and Old Primitive
nebula Clouds and
Red periods, de- breaks
up into oceans segregate
velopment of at- gaseous
masses
mosphere and
stars
Day
three Carboniferous Earth
cools, sim- Eozoic period,
period, lush vege- ple plants only continents
tation emerge
Day
four Permian and Archean period Sun
condensed,
Triassic
periods, (equivalent of continents
resub-
final clearing
of Miller's
Azoic), merged
atmosphere sun
becomes visi-
ble as glowing
earth loses its lu-
minosity
Day
five Oolitic
and Cre- Paleozoic and Paleozoic and
taceous periods, Mesozoic
eras Mesozoic eras
ichthyosaurs, ple- (equivalent of
siosaurs, birds, Miller's
Silurian
pterodactyls through
Creta-
ceous), marine
animals and com-
plex vegetation
Day
six Tertiary land Tertiary
land Tertiary
land
mammals mammals mammals
the
creation days were long periods of time, because it would
be
absurd that any prominence should be given to a lack of
rain
if the days were only 24 hours long.
Why should any prominence be given to a
fact so common as a lapse of
two ordinary days without rain, more
especially if a region of the earth
and not the whole is referred to, and in
a document prepared for a people
residing in climates such as those of
be more instructive and confirmatory of
the truth of the narrative than the
fact that in the two long periods which
preceded the formation and clearing
up of the atmosphere or firmament, on
which rain depended, and the
elevation of the dry land, which so
greatly modifies its distribution, there
had been no rain such as now occurs.146
146 Ibid., 142.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 273
For
liquid
that had spun out of a primitive solar nebula. "The
words
of Moses appear to suggest a heated and cooling globe,
its
crust as yet unbroken by internal forces, covered by a
universal
ocean, on which rested a mass of confused vaporous
substances."147
The great deep referred to the atmospheric
waters
covering the earth, and the darkness of Gen 1:2 was
the
darkness of outer space "destitute of luminaries." The
cooling
of the vaporous globe took millions of years and would
continue
until the "atmosphere could be finally cleared of its
superfluous
vapors."148 The light that appeared on day one
"must
have proceeded from luminous matter diffused through
the
whole space of the solar system."149 This luminous matter
was
gradually concentrated and "at length all gathered within
the
earth's orbit"150 so that only one hemisphere at a time
would
be lighted.
At first there was no distinction
between sea and atmo-
sphere:
"The earth was covered by the waters, and these were
in
such a condition that there was no distinction between the
seas
and the clouds. No atmosphere separated them, or, in
other
words, dense fogs and mists everywhere rested on the
surface
of the primeval ocean."151 Continued cooling led to
separation
of the waters and the formation of a distinct ocean
and
atmosphere. The ocean waters segregated into basins as
the
dry lands appeared as suggested by Prov 8:25, Ps
119:90,
Job
9:6, and Job 38:4. Ps 104:5-9 especially referred to the
work
of the third day.
In whichever sense we understand this
line, the picture presented to us
by the Psalmist includes the elevation
of the mountains and continents,
the subsidence of the waters into their
depressed basins, and the firm
establishment of the dry land on its
rocky foundations, the whole accom-
panied by a feature
not noticed in Genesis--the voice of God's thunder--
or, in other words, electrical and
volcanic explosions."152
147 Ibid., 110.
148 Ibid., 113.
149 Ibid., 117.
150 Ibid.
151 Ibid., 157.
152 Ibid., 176.
274
pothesis as consistent
with the biblical account of day three.
Geologists,
noted
have attributed the elevation of the
continents and the upheaval and pla-
cation of mountain
chains to the secular refrigeration of the earth, causing
its outer shell to become too capacious
for its contracting interior mass,
and thus to break or bend, and to settle
toward the centre. This view would
well accord with the terms in which the
elevation of the land is mentioned
throughout the Bible, and especially
with the general progress of the work
as we have gleaned it from the Mosaic
narrative; since from the period of
the desolate void and aeriform deep to that now before us secular refrig-
eration must have been
steadily in progress.153
three
with the Eozoic period154 (see Table II).
well
aware that in the fossil record well-developed invertebrate
animals
appear earlier than land vegetation. To evade the
force
of the difficulty he assumed that many older deposits
of
fossil plants had been metamorphosed and destroyed be-
yond
recognition. He suggested that during metamorphism
the
organic material was converted into graphite, i.e., crys-
talline carbon, a very
common mineral in older metamorphic
rocks.
logical
species. In Deut 14:15 and Lev 1:14 the term was said
clearly
to mean species, and so
ruled
out any development hypotheses. Long after the pub-
lication of
Each species, as observed by us, is
permanently reproductive, variable
within narrow limits, and incapable of
permanent intermixture with other
species; and though hypotheses of
modification by descent, and of the
production of new species by such
modification, may be formed, they are
not in accordance with experience, and
are still among the unproved spec-
ulations which haunt the
outskirts of true science.155
On the fourth day the concentration of
luminosity in the
center
of the solar system, that is, the condensation of the
153 Ibid., 184-85.
154 The term Eozoic
was applied for a term to the very latest Precambrian
rocks,
rocks that occurred just beneath the stratified Cambrian rocks and that
were
thought to contain very primitive invertebrate fossils.
155 Ibid., 189.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 275
luminous
envelope around the sun, was completed. The sun
and
moon could then become markers for the seasons and
years.
In earlier periods there were no distinctly marked sea-
sons,
and the limits of days and years were inaccurately de-
fined.
portion
of the continental landmasses resubmerged because
the
fifth day was predominantly the day of marine life.
During the third day the extent of
terrestrial surface was increasing, on
the fourth day it diminished, and on the
fifth it again increased, and
probably has on the whole continued to
increase up to the present time.
One most important geological
consequence of this is that the marine
animals of the fifth day probably
commenced their existence on sea bottoms which were the old soil surfaces of
submerged continents
previously clothed with vegetation, and
which consequently contained
much organic matter fitted to form a
basis of support for the newly created
animals.156
All
the animals created on the fifth day were attributed to the
Paleozoic
and Mesozoic eras. The sixth day belonged to the
Tertiary
period, the age of mammals. On the latter point he
was
in general agreement with Guyot.
Brief mention may also be made of George
Frederick
Wright,
the last of the great nineteenth-century Christian ge-
ologists. Throughout his
long career Wright addressed ques-
tions relating to the
integration of Christianity and geology.
In
1882, in Studies in Science and Religion,157
Wright noted that
he
was not impressed with the efforts of other geologists to
achieve
concord. "In many of these attempts it is difficult to
tell
which has been most distorted, the rocks or the sacred
record."158
Calling Genesis 1 a
"remarkable ‘proem' " Wright
believed
that
it was not modern science with which the
sacred writers wished to be
reconciled, but polytheism which they
wished to cut up root and branch....
When thus we consider it as a protest
against polytheism, and an enforce-
ment of the first
two commandments, it seems an impertinence to endeavor
to find all modern science in the
document, however easy it may be for
science to find shelter under the
drapery of its rhetoric.159
156 Ibid., 205.
157 George
F.
Draper, 1882).
158 Ibid., 365.
159 Ibid., 366-67.
276
Wright
showed that in all the details of Genesis 1 it was
affirmed
that God was Creator. The sun, sky, animals, and so
on
were all creatures of the one true God and should not be
the
objects of worship.
Wright later changed his mind and
undertook the very effort
he
earlier condemned. In Scientific
Confirmations of Old Testament
History160 so Wright
confessed that he had dwelt "too exclusively
upon
the adaptation of the document to the immediate pur-
pose
of counteracting the polytheistic tendencies of the Is-
raelites."161
Upon further reflection he was so impressed by
the
writings of Dana and Guyot that he saw "in this
account
a
systematic arrangement of creative facts which corresponds
so
closely with the order of creation as revealed by modern
science
that we cannot well regard it as accidental."162 His
thumbnail
review of the correspondence of Genesis 1 and the
order
of geology was essentially taken over from the Guyot-
Dana
position.
3.
Nineteenth-Century Concordism--the
Flood
Because concordists
felt the cumulative weight of geological
evidence
against the notion of a global deluge that deposited
the
entire stratigraphic column, harmonistic concerns
shifted
from
the flood to the creation account. Nevertheless the flood
played
an important subsidiary role in their thought. Here,
too,
concordists adjusted their interpretations of the
flood
story
to the constraints of the geological data. During the
early
nineteenth century there was still widespread belief in
a
catastrophic flood of continental or global proportions even
among
mainstream geologists and naturalists who were con-
vinced of the earth's
antiquity. The presumed effects of that
flood,
however, had been reduced. For example, William
Buckland,
who was anxious that geology continue its support
for
the Mosaic record of the flood, identified numerous sur-
ficial gravels,
erratic boulders, and broad river valleys dis-
160 George
(Oberlin,
Ohio: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1906).
161 Ibid., 368.
162 Ibid., 370.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 277
tributed widely over
northern
catastrophic
deluge.163
Buckland's proposals regarding the flood
encountered op-
position
on both scientific and biblical grounds. The Scottish
naturalist
and Presbyterian minister, John Fleming, said that
Buckland's
flood "occasioned the destruction of all the in-
dividuals of many species
of quadrupeds."164 But that was
clearly
contrary to the Mosaic account, for Moses expressly
stated
that some of all kinds of animals were preserved in the
ark.
This preservation was identified as a preservation of "spe-
cies ":
"we have revelation, declaring that, of all species of
quadrupeds
a male and female were spared and preserved
during
the deluge."165
Secondly, Fleming maintained that
Buckland's deluge was
"sudden,
transient, universal, simultaneous, rushing with an
overwhelming
impetuosity, infinitely more powerful than the
most
violent waterspouts."166 Fleming took issue with such
diluvial attributes.
In the history of the Noachian deluge by
Moses, there is not a term em-
ployed which indicates
any one of the characters, except universality, at-
tributed to the
geological deluge. On the contrary, the flood neither
approached nor retired suddenly....
There is no notice taken of the furious
movements of the waters, which must have
driven the ark violently to and
fro.167
Fleming also disagreed about the
geological capabilities of
the
flood. Buckland's flood "excavated, in its fury, deep val-
leys,
tearing up portions of the solid rock, and transporting
to
a distance the wreck which it had produced." 168 But if that
had
happened,
163 See William Buckland, Reliquiae diluvianae
(London: John Murray, 1823 ).
Later
in his career, Buckland became convinced of the adequacy of the glacial
hypothesis
to account for the boulders, gravels, widened valleys, and many
of
the vertebrate deposits. As a result, he manfully recanted his earlier com-
mitment to a
catastrophic deluge theory.
164 John Fleming, "The
Geological Deluge, as interpreted by Baron Cuvier
and
Professor Buckland, inconsistent with the testimony of Moses and the
Phenomena
of Nature,"
165 Ibid., 212.
166 Ibid., 213.
167 Ibid.
168 Ibid.
278
the antediluvian world must have been
widely different from the present;
lakes, and valleys, and seas, now
existing in places formerly occupied by
rocks, and the courses of rivers greatly
altered. In the Book of Genesis
there is no such change hinted at. On
the contrary, the countries and rivers
which existed before the flood, do not
appear, from any thing said in the
Scriptures, to have experienced any
change in consequence of that event.
But if the supposed impetuous torrent
excavated valleys, and transported
masses of rocks to a distance from their
original repositories, then must
the soil have been swept from off the
earth, to the destruction of the
vegetable tribes. Moses does not record
such an occurrence. On the con-
trary, in his history
of the dove and the olive-leaf plucked off, he furnishes
a proof that the flood was not so
violent in its motions as to disturb the
soil, nor to overturn the trees which it
supported; nor was the ground
rendered, by the catastrophe, unfit for
the cultivation of the vine.169
Convinced of the tranquil nature of the
flood and of its
general
lack of substantial geological activity, Fleming com-
mented that he did not
expect to find any marks or memorials
to
the flood. As a matter of fact, if he had "witnessed every
valley
and gravel-bed, nay, every fossil bone, attesting the
ravages
of the dreadful scene, I would have been puzzled to
account
for the unexpected difficulties; and might have been
induced
to question the accuracy of Moses as an historian, or
the
claims of the Book of Genesis to occupy its present place
in
the sacred record."170
Fleming's tranquil flood theory was not
widely adopted.
Later
concordists who accepted the historical reality of
the
flood
believed that the flood had left significant geological
relics.
However, the flood was considered to be geographically
restricted.
Hugh Miller eloquently argued against the geo-
graphic
universality of the flood and spoke of the "palpable
monstrosities"
associated with universal deluge theories. In
the
nature of the case, Miller argued, there could have been
no
eye-witness to the extent of the flood. If Noah and his
family
were the only survivors there was no way they could
have
observed that the flood had been universal. God could
have
revealed such geographic facts, but then "God's reve-
lations have in most
instances been made to effect exclusively
moral
purposes; and we know that those who have perilously
held
that, along with the moral facts, definite physical facts,
169 Ibid., 213-14.
170 Ibid., 214.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 279
geographic,
geologic, or astronomical, has also been im-
parted,
have almost invariably found themselves involved in
monstrous
error."171 The moral significance of the flood
would
not be altered by a reduction in its extent. Miller stated
that
universal language was commonly used in Scripture for
more
limited events. In many instances it was clear from the
text
that such a limitation was inherent, "but there is no such
explanation
given to limit or restrict most of the other pas-
sages;
the modifying element must be sought for outside the
sacred
volume."172 The flood story fell into that latter cate-
gory.
Almost all the texts of Scripture in
which questions of physical science are
involved, the limiting, modifying,
explaining facts and circumstances must
be sought for in that outside region of
secular research, historic and sci-
entific, from which of
late years so much valuable biblical illustration has
been derived, and with which it is so
imperatively the duty of the Church
to keep up an acquaintance at least as
close and intimate as that maintained
with it by her gainsayers and
assailants.173
For
Miller science showed that there had been no universal
flood.
One of the compelling arguments against
the universality
of
the flood concerned the problem of getting animals to and
from
the ark. Supposing for the sake of argument the validity
of
the idea that the flood involved elevation of the sea bed
and
sinking of landmasses, Miller poked fun at some of the
inherent
impossibilities of the universal deluge.
A continuous tract of land would have
stretched,--when all the oceans
were continents and all the continents
oceans,--between the South Amer-
ican and the Asiatic
coasts. And it is just possible that, during the hundred
and twenty years in which the ark was in
building, a pair of sloths might
have crept by inches across this
continuous tract, from where the skeletons
of the great megatheria174
are buried, to where the great vessel stood. But
after the Flood had subsided, and the
change in sea and land had taken
place, there would remain for them no
longer a roadway; and so, though
their journey outwards might, in all
save the impulse which led to it, have
been altogether a natural one, their
voyage homewards could not be other
than miraculous. Nor would the exertion
of miracle have had to be re-
171 Miller, Testimony, 300-301.
172 Ibid., 302.
173 Ibid., 302-3.
174 Megatherium
was a gigantic extinct sloth.
280
stricted to the
transport of the remoter travellers. How, we may well ask,
had the Flood been universal, could even
such islands as
Even supposing it possible that animals,
such as the
ox might have swam across the Straits of
Dover or the Irish Channel, to
graze anew over deposits in which the
bones and horns of their remote
ancestors had been entombed long ages
before, the feat would have been
surely far beyond the power of such
feeble natives of the soil as the mole,
the hedgehog, the shrew, the dormouse,
and the field-vole.175
Though firmly convinced of a local
deluge, Miller admitted
being
on "weak ground" when discussing the location and
mechanism
of the flood. He suggested that the very large,
depressed
area of central
Aral
seas might have been the locus of the flood. He claimed
that
if a "trench-like strip of country that communicated be-
tween the Caspian and
the
beneath
the level of the latter sea, it would so
open up the
fountains of the
great deep
as to lay under water an extensive and
populous
region."176 If the area
were depressed by 400 feet
per
day, the basin would subside to a depth of 16,000 feet
within
forty days and the highest mountains of the district
would
be drowned. If volcanic outbursts were associated with
such
a depression of the land, the atmosphere would be so
affected
that "heavy drenching rains" would have descended
the
entire time.
local
event and that subsidence of an inhabited land area
resulted
in large scale flooding and entombment of the pre-
diluvian races beneath
deposits of mud and silt around the
The physical agencies evoked by the
divine power to destroy this ungodly
race were a subsidence of the region
they inhabited, so as to admit the
oceanic waters, and extensive atmospherical disturbances connected with
that subsidence, and perhaps with the
elevation of neighboring regions.
In this case it is possible that the
eighty feet below the level of the
ocean, and which was probably much
more extensive then than at present,
received much of the drainage of the
flood, and that the mud and sand
deposits of this sea and the adjoining
175 Ibid., 348.
176 Ibid., 356.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 281
desert plains, once manifestly a part of
its bottom, concealed any remains
that exist of the antediluvian
population.177
Wright, too, believed the flood had been
a great local in-
undation of a huge tract
of central
account
"represents the Flood as caused not so much by the
rising
of the water, as by the sinking of the land. It says that
all
the fountains of the great deep were broken up."178 As a
glacial
geologist, Wright related the flood to glacial action.
The
removal of enormous quantities of water from the ocean
and
their inclusion in massive glacial sheets caused redistri-
bution of weight on
the earth's surface. The ice sheets de-
pressed
the landmasses while the ocean beds were elevated
as
the load of water was removed. These readjustments led
to
pressures that reinforced depression of portions of the
landmasses.179 One of the
great depressed areas was that of
central
the
ice age, enormous amounts of glacial meltwater
returned
to
the oceans and also temporarily drowned the great basin
of
central
Baikal
were said to be remnants of that vast depression.
4.
Recent Concordism
Since the nineteenth century, Christian
geologists became
a
silent minority. For several decades few harmonizations
of
Scripture
with geological data were attempted.180 Then in
1977,
a sudden flurry of concordist works appeared
beginning
with
my Creation and the Flood.181
My scheme resembled the
day-age
proposals of Miller, Dana, Guyot, and
geological
data were updated, and it was proposed that the
events
of the six days were overlapping. A diagram illustrated
how
the days of creation might have overlapped. Genesis 1
177
178 Wright, Scientific Confirmations, 206.
179 Ibid., 224-29.
180 An important exception to the
dearth of concordist literature during
this
period is B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (
Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1954). It should, however, be recognized
that Ramm
spoke
as a theologian trained in the sciences rather than as a scientist.
181
282
was
said to contain summary reports of the major activities
of
each day so that the creative events of each day were not
necessarily
restricted to that day. For example, bird formation
was
envisioned as possibly continuing into day six, and the
creation
of mammals was viewed as being initiated prior to
day
six and reaching its climax on that day.182
I suggested that the creation of earth
on day one referred
to
a partially organized body not yet fit for life and habitation.
The
deep was an initial ocean that covered the globe prior
to
continent formation.183 The
light of day one had reference
only
to earth; it was "radiant energy falling on the earth's surface
for
the first time.184 I denied
that this creation of light had
anything
to do with the so-called Big Bang hypothesis.185
The division of waters related to the
clouds above and
watery
oceans beneath; the creation of the firmament involved
the
development of the atmosphere. The waters accumulated
into
ocean basins, and continental landmasses appeared on
the
third day. It was admitted that "some difficulties are readily
apparent
in correlating Genesis with paleobotany."186 The
problem
was that "different categories of plants seem to have
arisen
over widely-spaced times."187 Like Guyot and
I
noted that Genesis places plants before animals but that
geology
reverses the order. I suggested that future paleon-
tological work would
disclose more information about the
origins
of plants and that the biasing of early Paleozoic rocks
in
favor of marine deposits had led us to overlook the possible
importance
of terrestrial land plants that might have existed
earlier
than we had thought. After a century of intense pa-
leontological investigation
and of day-age concordism, I did
no
better with the plant-animal sequence than had Guyot
or
nevertheless
thought that the expression "after his kind" sug-
182 Ibid., 116-17.
183 Ibid., 119.
184 Ibid., 120.
185 Ibid.
186 Ibid., 128.
187 Ibid.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 283
gested an
"independence of botanical classes that is incom-
patible with the
general plant evolution.188
I, too, insisted that the absolute
origin of the sun, moon,
and
stars did not occur on the fourth day. The function of
the
heavenly bodies with respect to earth was in view. "The
point
seems to be that at this time the earth comes into its
present
and final relationship to the sun so that now the sun
and
moon can serve as time regulators for the earth."189
In 1983, John Wiester
published a fine summary of current
geological
and astronomical findings within the constraints of
the
day-age theory.190 Wiester said little about Gen 1:2 and
linked
that verse with the moment of creation or even "before
the
beginning." He made no effort to identify the great deep.
Of
this verse he said, "The most we can say scientifically about
‘before
the beginning’ is that we know nothing about it. The
scientific
quest has reached a barrier it cannot penetrate. Time
and
space have no meaning or existence. We must turn to
the
Scripture at this point."191 Creation therefore began with
the
pronouncement of God, "Let there be light." This light
was
identified with the Big Bang of modern cosmology. "Sci-
ence now fully
agrees with the Bible that the Universe began
with
light. It is time our textbooks reflected the harmony of
science
with the first creation command in Genesis."192
Wiester attributed the
formation of the atmosphere to day
two.
During its early history the earth went through a molten
stage,
characterized by segregation of materials in the interior
as
well as outgassing of volatile substances. The outgassed
material
separated into seas and a cloudy atmosphere. The
waters
were gathered into ocean basins and continents ap-
peared. Wiester claimed that the creation of the sun on day
four
related to clearing of the atmosphere. He suggested that
"the
primordial atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other
smog-like
gases had to be purified,"193 and that Gen 1:15 has
in
view "the transformation of light from the Sun into a ben-
188 Ibid., 127.
189 Ibid., 129.
190 John L. Wiester,
The Genesis Connection (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1983).
191 Ibid., 36.
192 Ibid., 45.
193 Ibid., 115.
284
eficial energy
source" for "we do know that scientific history
places
the appearance of sunlight beneficial to advanced life
in
the same sequential order as this fourth creation command
in
Genesis."194
Another recent attempt at concordism is The
Genesis
Answer195 by William Lee
Stokes of the
Although
Stokes worked out a correspondence of cosmic and
geological
history with the days of Genesis 1, he asserted that
the
days did not represent figurative periods of time. The
days
"were not of equal duration and are not intended to be
measures
of time. They are not the periods, epochs, and eras
invented
by geologists. Their meaning is celestial and not
terrestrial.
They are God's divisions of his own creations."196
This
view he called the Genesis code. Even though the days
were
not periods of time, each creative day was said to consist
of
a period dominated by darkness and a period dominated
by
light.
Stokes maintained that in Gen 1:2 the
original, primitive
"earth"
was "universal unorganized matter, primitive, basic,
and
elemental--but with endless potential for future devel-
opment."197
Since there was no planet yet, neither the deep
nor
the waters of Gen 1:2 could refer to an ocean. The face
of
the deep "is to signify that there was a mass, at least a
separate
entity, with a surface or discontinuity surrounding
surrounding
the material which God intended to organize."198
The
water of Gen 1:2 was water in outer space. Stokes stated
that
"water exists in the clouds of space and is known to be
abundant
in areas where new stars are forming. Reasoning
and
speculating from these facts it may be assumed for the
sake
of continuing the story that water may be essential to
the
formation of solar systems like the one to which the Earth
belongs."199
194 Ibid.
195 William L. Stokes, The Genesis Answer (
Hall,
1984).
196 Ibid., 53.
197 Ibid., 30.
198 Ibid., 32.
199 Ibid., 40.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 285
Stokes admitted difficulty in explaining
the origin of light.
He
said that the creation of light on day one was not to be
identified
with the Big Bang of modern astronomy but to a
later
stage of development. Thus the Big Bang fireball could
have
occurred before the six creative days. As the original
brilliance
of the fireball gradually diminished, the universe
approached
a period of universal darkness. This darkness was
the
evening of the first day. "The appearance and dominance
of
light in the galaxy we call our own would be the `morning'
of
the first day.200
Stokes' astronomical approach carried
over into the dis-
cussion of day two. The
waters above and below the firmament
were
waters of space, and the "production of the Firmament
is
equivalent to events that followed the production of the
first
light-producing objects of the galaxy.”201 The creation
of
the firmament was essentially completed when the spiral
arms
of our galaxy appeared. The waters under the firmament
and
the waters above the firmament were the two opposite
spiral
arms of the galaxy! The next step was to explain the
evening
and morning of the second day. "Certainly a black
hole
appears to be exactly what is needed for the dark phase
of
the second day. Here, more dramatically than any other
known
arrangement, light is separated from darkness. The
separation
is forceable--light is restrained from
escaping."202
On day three the waters were gathered
together. Stokes
proposed
that some of the water on one side of the evolving
galaxy
came together and developed enough material from
which
to build several solar systems. "The emphasis is on a
process
that would eventually give rise to the earth."203 More-
over,
"The theme of Gen 1:9 is clearly the emergence of a
solid
planet from formerly diffuse, unorganized material.204
The
separation of earth from water was identified with seg-
regation of earth from
the nebular dust cloud. "The burning
process
literally ‘cleaned up’ the solar system by sweeping
away
the remnants of the nebular cloud. This was the final
200 Ibid., 63.
201
Ibid., 78.
202 Ibid., 82.
203 Ibid., 85.
204 Ibid., 87.
286
event
which brought the planet earth into existence as a sep-
arate solid body. The
earth had at length ‘come up dry'."205
Still
further, "the gathering together ‘in one place' seems to
be
a very acceptable description of the accumulation of matter
in
a specific region of space that is an essential step in for-
mation of a solar
system and also in the formation of individual
planets
and satellites."206 As the process continued "it is not
difficult
to visualize the planet emerging form enclosing mists
or
clouds. The references to ‘dry land’ or a dry earth is [sic]
scientifically
very significant. The use of this wording forces
the
conclusion that the earth was at one stage without surface
bodies
of liquid water."207 The
darkness of day three ensued
as
the matter of the spiral arm of the galaxy passed from the
luminous
region into the dark inter-arm region.
As the dust and gas that had been
diffused throughout the
solar
system were cleared away by solar light, radiation, and
wind,
the sun became visible. This passage from the obscurity
of
dust clouds into the clear light of the sun marked the
passage
from the darkness of evening into the light of morning
of
the fourth day.
One final work that merits attention is Genesis One and the
Origin of the
Earth208 by Robert C.
Newman and Herman Eck-
elmann. Although the
primary interest of Newman and Eck-
elmann was in
astrophysics rather than geology, their
approach
bears on geology. Our authors suggested that "each
day
opens a new creative period, and therefore each day is
mentioned
in Genesis 1 after the activities of the previous
creative
period have been described, but before those of the
next
period are given."209 Moreover, the days were "sequen-
tial but not
consecutive" and "the creative activity largely
occurs
between days rather than on them."210 Each day of
Genesis
1 was a 24-hour day that introduced a particular
creative
activity of God. The activity was not confined to that
205 Ibid., 92.
206 Ibid., 97.
207
Ibid.
208 Robert C. Newman and Herman
J. Eckelmann, Jr., Genesis One and the
Origin of the
Earth
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977).
209 Ibid., 64-65.
210 Ibid., 74.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 287
day,
for each day was followed by a long period of time in
which
the activity continued. Thus, although the beginning
of
the creation of vegetation preceded the beginning of the
creation
of land animals, the appearance of vegetation may
have
continued after the animals began to appear. "It is not
necessary
to suppose that the fruit trees ... were created
before
any kind of animal life, which would contradict the
fossil
record understood as a chronological sequence. Instead,
we
assume that the creative period involving land vegetation
began
before the creative periods involving sea, air and land
animals
of sorts big enough to be noticed by an average human
observer."211
Newman and Eckelmann
named their view the
intermittent-day
view. The 24-hour days of creation were sep-
arated by long time
gaps of indeterminate length, and most
of
the creative activity occurred during those unmentioned
stretches
of time.212
Newman and Eckelmann
suggested that in Gen 1:2 "the
earth
at this point in the narrative is not yet a solid body, but
is
shapeless and empty, perhaps even invisible. This is an
excellent,
though nontechnical description of the gas cloud
that
would eventually form the earth.”213 The darkness on
the
earth was a subsequent darkness that developed as the
"shapeless,
empty cloud, becomes dark as contraction raises
the
density enough to block out starlight."214 Similarly the
"deep"
was equated with "the gas cloud, now a dark, cloudy
and
unfathomable region of space.”215 A large body of ice or
of
water, a mass of ice crystals, ice droplets, a cloud of water
vapor,
or even some other fluid would be within the range
of
usage of the word mayim
(waters, Gen 1:2) in Scripture.
"All
of these would have a surface over which the Spirit of
God
might ‘move’ or ‘hover’. In agreement with the scientific
211 Ibid., 79.
212 An early exegetical defense
of a view very similar to the intermittent-
day
view can be found in F. Hugh Capron, The
Conflict of Truth (
Alan
Hayward, Creation and Evolution
(London: Triangle, 1985).
213 Newman and Eckelmann, Genesis
One, 70.
214 Ibid., 71.
215 Ibid.
288
model
proposed, a dark nebula would be expected to contain
some
water vapor.”216
As the gas cloud contracted it would
heat and begin to
glow.
An hypothetical observer would first see darkness every-
where
and then light,
then some of both after they are
separated. From the viewpoint of an
observer riding along with the material
of the earth as it is being formed,
this is just what our scientific model
would predict. When the gas cloud
first begins to contract, the observer
can see stars outside.... Later the
contraction becomes sufficient to absorb
light from outside the cloud, and
the observer within is in the dark
('darkness was over the surface of the
deep'). After further contraction and
heating, however, the whole cloud
lights up and the observer, immersed in
light, can see no darkness anywhere
('and there was light'). Then, when the
observer follows the equatorial
band of gas and dust out from inside the
cloud, both darkness and light
are simultaneously visible.217
The firmament (atmosphere) formed by
degassing of the
earth's
interior. The sun and other astronomical bodies ap-
peared on day four as
the cloudy atmosphere cleared.
In
these recent efforts, the flood received scant attention;
the
focus has been on the interpretation of Genesis 1. My
Creation and the
Flood
was the only one of these works to deal
with
the flood. Only the final chapter was devoted to the flood,
and
the intent of that chapter was to criticize the global di-
luvialism of scientific
creationism rather than to make positive
proposals.
The only widely publicized contemporary flood
theories
available to evangelicals are those of scientific crea-
tionism. Small wonder
that on the issue of the flood evan-
gelicals are so
attracted to that voice; it is virtually the only
one
speaking among us!218
Selected interpretations of nineteenth
and twentieth cen-
tury concordists are summarized in Table III. Concordists
216 Ibid., 72.
217 Ibid., 73.
218 A variety of local and large
regional flood hypotheses have been pro-
posed
by such writers as E. K. Victor Pearce, R. E. D. Clark, and F. A. Molony
in
Faith and Thought and Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria
Institute but
none
of these is well known to the general evangelical public. Perhaps the
mot
extensive evangelical treatment of the flood from a nonscientific crea-
tionist viewpoint is
Frederick A. Filby, The Flood Reconsidered (
Zondervan, 1970).
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 289
TABLE III
Summary
of Concordist Interpretations of Key Texts in Genesis
Gen 1:2 Gen 1:6-8 Gen. 7:11
Kirwan Global ocean Atmosphere Caverns
and
that
precipitates formed by evap- ocean
chemicals, heat- during chemical
ing ocean which precipitation
then vaporizes
to
thick darkness;
Spirit-evapora-
tion
Buckland
Devastated state Oceanic
tides ac-
of world after
ca- counting
only for
tastrophe prior surficial gravels
to re-creation
Fleming Tranquil
flood
Miller Primitive
ocean Development of Depression of
atmosphere;
de- central
posit
of Silurian subsequent
and
Old Red flooding
rocks
Guyot Matter in primi- Primitive
nebula
tive condition; breaks up into
gaseous atmo- gaseous
masses
sphere and stars
water covering ocean segregate
earth
Wright Depression
of
earth
by glacial
ice
and flooding
of
depressions
by melting gla-
cial ice
Newman
and Gas cloud that
Eckelmann blocks out star-
light
Stokes Universal
unor- Opposed
spiral
ganized matter arms of galaxy;
and water in darkness of sec-
space day due to
black hole
290
have
been as inventive as the literalists. Gen 1:2 has been
interpreted
as a global ocean precipitating chemicals and pro-
ducing a great
evaporation, atmospheric water, a simple prim-
itive ocean,
primitive matter, a gas cloud, or as the devastated
condition
of the world after a great catastrophe long after
creation.
Events of the second day of creation have included
formation
of the atmosphere by evaporation of the ocean or
by
outgassing of earth's interior, the segregation of a
primitive
nebula
into stars, and the formation of spiral arms of a galaxy
together
with black holes. The flood was of continental scale
and
formed surficial features, it was completely tranquil
and
left
no effects, and it inundated central
the
sea or the melting of glacial ice. The range of suggestions
for
the interpretation of these and other portions of the bib-
lical text indicates
that concordism has not given us reliable
answers
about relating the text to scientific questions. The
Christian
concordist still does not know from God's Word
what
happened on the second day of creation or how the
flood
occurred. Despite many attempts, concordism has not
successfully
explained the making of the sun, moon, and stars
on
the fourth day. Nor has concordism accounted for the
creation
of vegetation on day three prior to the appearance
of
sea creatures in relation to the prior appearance of sea life
as
disclosed by paleontology. As more and more concordist
suggestions
have been advanced in light of the latest devel-
opments in science, one
becomes increasingly suspicious that
the
biblical text has been pressed into the service of a task
for
which it was not intended. I sense that the Bible does not,
even
incidentally, provide answers to detailed technical ques-
tions about the
structure and history of the cosmos. Scripture
contains
no anticipations about the physical development of
the
cosmos that awaited the scientific discoveries of the nine-
teenth and twentieth
(or future!) centuries to be brought into
the
open.
Concordism is not only the
pet of Christian scientists. Con-
cordism has also been
warmly embraced by theologians and
exegetes.
In the nineteenth century Charles Hodge, A. A.
Hodge,
and B. B. Warfield, as well as such Scottish Presby-
terian stalwarts as
James McCosh, James Orr, and Alexander
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 291
Maclaren were kindly
disposed toward the day-age theory.219
James
Murphy and Herbert Morris defended the gap theory
in
their writings.220 More recently J. 0. Buswell,
Jr., and Har-
old
Stigers adopted the view that the days of Genesis 1
were
periods
of time longer than 24 hours .221 I suggest that we will
be
well served if commentators recognize that concordism
has
not
solved our problem of relating Genesis and geology any
more
than literalism. Commentators should not try to show
correlations
between Genesis 1 and geology and should per-
haps
develop exegeses that are consistent with the historical-
cultural-theological
setting of ancient
was
written.
IV. Conclusions
and Suggestions for the Future
No doubt not all will choose to follow
this trail out of the
swamp.
Those who have done so will need to survey coop-
eratively the terrain
carefully before setting out a new path.
In
taking stock, I propose that several matters need to be
stressed
and faced if evangelicals are to follow a path that will
lead
to satisfactory integration of biblical interpretation and
scientific
study.222
1. Literalism
and concordism are failed enterprises that
evangelicals
should abandon.
A review of 300 years of literalistic
and concordistic har-
monizations between the
biblical text and the results of em-
219 For a more comprehensive
listing of many prominent theologians and
exegetes
who adopted the day-age theory see my Christianity
and the Age of the
Earth, 55-67.
220 Herbert W.
Morris, Science and the Bible (
McCurdy,
1871), and James G. Murphy, A Commentary
on the Book of Genesis
(Andover:
Draper, 1887).
221 J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., A
Systemic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan, 1962), and Harold G. Stigers,
A Commentary on Genesis
(Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976).
222 It is not the purpose of
this paper to work out the areas of integration.
That
is the future task of Christian exegetes and scientists working in concert.
Nevertheless
I suggest that, if a proper integration should focus less on the
precise
correlation of presumably historical details, it should also focus more
on
broad biblical principles such as God's providence, the orderliness of
creation,
and man's role as steward of God's creation that are fundamental
to
the scientific task.
292
pirical geological
study shows that there has been absolutely
no
consensus among evangelical Christians about interpre-
tation of the details
of the biblical accounts of creation and
the
flood or about texts such as Psalm 104, Proverbs 8, or
other
wisdom literature that bear on the creation, the flood,
or
the physical character of the earth. There has not been a
Christian
consensus about the identity of the great deep, about
the
firmament, about the waters above and below the firma-
ment, about what
happened on the fourth day of creation,
about
the sequencing of events and their matching with the
geological
evidence, or about the nature of the fountains of
the
great deep. Given this history of extreme variation of
understanding
of these various elements of the biblical text,
it
is unwise to insist that the teaching of the biblical text on
any
of these matters is "clear and plain" or that one's own
interpretation
is obviously what the biblical text has in mind.
As science developed and new theoretical
frameworks were
constructed
in light of new discoveries, interpretations of bib-
lical data were
repeatedly adjusted to match the new under-
standing
of those data. Both details and overall approaches
to
Genesis 1 or the flood were adjusted again and again. Such
adjustments
will continue with advances in the physical sci-
ences so long as
evangelicals assume that the biblical portrayal
of
creation gives us a skeletal outline of a scientific history of
the
planet or cosmos. The result would be still more variations
of
interpretation of texts from which to choose. We would be
farther
than ever from approaching an evangelical consensus.
Perhaps
the time has come to make the adjustment, in light
of
the extrabiblical evidence, away from the idea that
the
biblical
text gives us a scientifically verifiable history of the
planet.
The inability of literalism to provide a
satisfactory agree-
ment between the
biblical text and geological knowledge can
be
seen on two counts. In the first place, modern literalistic
interpretations
of the creation and flood texts yield results
that
are wildly at variance with geological knowledge. In the
second
place the wide variation of interpretation demonstrates
that
we have not yet discovered the proper understanding of
"scientifically
relevant" biblical texts. Literalism, after 300
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 293
years,
has failed and no longer provides a fruitful approach
for
achieving the appropriate biblical view of geology.
Concordism has been unable
to provide a satisfactory agree-
ment between the
biblical text and geological knowledge.
Concordistic efforts have
never been able to do justice to the
fourth
day of creation and to the relative positioning of the
third
and fifth days of creation in relationship to geological
knowledge.223
On the other hand the variation of suggestions
further
demonstrates that concordism has not helped us to
understand
"scientifically relevant" biblical texts any more
than
has literalism. Concordism, after 250 years, has also
failed
and no longer may be assumed to provide a fruitful
approach
for achieving an appropriate biblical view of geol-
ogy.
It is doubtful that, after centuries of
failure, either strategy
is
going to be effective in the future. I suggest that evangelicals
give
up the attempt to identify the role of the great deep in
terrestrial
history, to work out a geophysics of the flood, to
settle
disputes between theistic evolutionists and progressive
creationists
about the origin and development of life from
studies
of the word "kind" or from the arrangement of dif-
fering life-forms on
days three, five, and six, or to work out
the
sequence of geological events from biblical data. If evan-
gelicals are to achieve
an appropriate understanding of the
relationship
between biblical texts and scientific activity, then
literalism
and concordism should be abandoned and new ap-
proaches developed.
223 Genesis 1 does, of course,
convey the impression of sequential chro-
nology. But even if we
do not press the chronology too hard and simply take
refuge
in a vaguely sequential interpretation of Genesis 1 and a general
similarity
between Genesis 1 and the events of geology, we still cannot avoid
the
fact that day four cannot be explained easily in such a way as to allow
formation
of the heavens long before earth, and thus achieve concord with
one
of the more thoroughly established scientific conclusions. Moreover,
geological
evidence makes it clear that marine life preceded land vegetation,
contrary
to the view of Genesis 1 that assumes sequence of creative events.
These
severe difficulties suggest that we should at least give serious attention
to
the possibility that the chronology does not belong to the temporal se-
quence of events on
earth but in some way accommodates human under-
standing
to divine actions that transcend time.
294
2.
The failure of literalism and concordism suggests that the Bible
may not be
expected to provide precise "information" or "data" about
the physical
structure and history of the planet or cosmos.
Given the wide diversity of available
interpretations, it is
unlikely
that the Bible provides "high quality data" about
details
of the history or internal structure of the planet any
more
than Revelation yields "high quality data" about events
of
the future as in The Late Great Planet
Earth. If the Bible does
provide
such data, we have been totally unable to determine
exactly
what it is! For example, it is unwise to claim precision
for
biblical data about the mechanism of the flood in view of
proposals
about subterranean abysses, vapor canopies, caves,
comets,
melting glaciers, oceanic tides, colliding asteroids,
and
so on. We know nothing from the Bible about how the
flood
started except that water was involved!
The fundamental--and understandable--assumption
(one
that
I made previously) behind the search for "data" or "in-
formation"
by both literalists and concordists through the
centuries
is that Moses wrote strictly as a "sacred historian."
Thus
the creation and flood stories (as well as related wisdom
literature
texts) have been read as if they were reports pro-
viding
detailed information with quasi-photographic, jour-
nalistic accuracy and
precision. And it has been assumed that
these
events can potentially be recognized, identified, and
reconstructed
from the effects they left behind by using the
tools
of geological, cosmological, biological, and anthropo-
logical
investigations. Such historical reconstruction has been
thought
to be essentially no different from efforts to recon-
struct the historical
events of the
Third
Reich from extant documents and monuments. The
failure
of literalism and concordism suggests that we may
have
been
mistaken in such attempts.
3. Although
the so-called "geologically relevant" biblical passages
do not provide
data for historical geology in that they are not straight-
forward
reportorial chronicles, they nonetheless bear witness to genuine
history.
Even though the creation and flood
stories probably should
not
be read as journalistic reports or chronicles, they none-
theless treat of
events. We must reject the idea that the biblical
account
of creation does not speak of origination and can be
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 295
reduced
solely to the notion of dependence of the material
world
on God. Genesis 1 teaches not only the dependence of
the
world on God but also its divine origination. God did
bring
the world into being (Heb 11:3). Even though Genesis
1
may not yield a sequence of datable events, we must insist
that
God did bring plants, animals, heavenly bodies, seas,
earth,
and man into existence. Any thought of the eternity of
matter
must be rejected. A bringing into being came about
because
of God's creative action. What should be addressed
by
evangelicals is the manner in which Genesis 1 and other
creation
texts portray God's bringing the world into being.
The flood story of Genesis 6-9 also
witnesses to genuine
history.
The flood story tells us about God's action in this
world
and cannot be reduced to mere fable. Even though we
may
be unable to reconstruct a "historical geology" of the
flood,
behind the flood story of the Bible was an occurrence
in
the physical world in which God clearly acted in judgment
and
in grace. The task that lies ahead for evangelicals is to
discover
in what way the flood event is presented to us in
Scripture.
4. In
future wrestling with "geologically relevant" texts such as
Genesis 1-11,
evangelical scholars will have to face the implications
of the mass of
geological data indicating that the earth is extremely old,
indicating that
death has been on earth long before man, and indicating
that there has
not been a global flood.
Evangelicals can no longer afford the
luxury of ignoring
the
implications for biblical exegesis of the enormous mass
of
extrabiblical data provided by geology, cosmology,
and
anthropology.
It is unwise to proclaim belief in creation and
ownership
of the world by the sovereign Creator and then
ignore
the discoveries in God's world. Such an attitude is like
receiving
a beautiful Christmas package, profusely thanking
the
giver, and then failing to open the gift--ever. We insult
our
Creator if we fail to appreciate and appropriate what he
has
given us in the world.
Nor can evangelicals expect to provide
an effective witness
to
unbelieving scholars in geology, cosmology, biology, and
anthropology
if we ignore or distort what is known about the
world.
We place unnecessary stumbling-blocks in the way of
an
unbelieving geologist if we persist in the claim that the
296
literalistic
approach to the flood is the only legitimate ap-
proach. Any geologist
knows that a literalistic view of the flood
flies
in the face of the accumulated knowledge of the past
several
centuries. Will such a person be led to Christianity?224
Future wrestling with Genesis 1 and the
flood story must
come
to grips with the mountainous mass of data that indicates
that
our planet is billions of years old and has undergone a
complex,
dynamic history. No longer can competent, aware
Christian
theologians naively insist on a recent creation by
taking
refuge in the so-called evidences for recent creation
emanating
from the scientific creationist camp. Those who do
so
do the Christian community a disservice. No longer can
Christian
theologians claim that the Genesis story talks about
a
geographically universal deluge that has left observable,
physical
remains all over the earth's surface. No longer may
we
tell our children about the flood in which pairs of penguins
from
Antarctica, kangaroos from
Asia,
and lions and elephants from
two
into the waiting ark. The biogeographical data rule
out
such
migrations of animals. Though it is difficult to make such
assertions
and very painful for evangelicals to accept them,
the
evangelical world must face up to the implications of the
geological
data that exist if we wish to do justice to the biblical
text.
The very tempting response that many
evangelicals might
wish
to make is that the geological, biogeographical, and
anthropological
data have no real force because the present
reconstructions
of terrestrial history have been made largely
by
unbelievers who were controlled by world-views that are
hostile
to Christianity. What is needed, it may be claimed, is
for
Christians to reevaluate the data and to reinterpret it in
the
light of biblical principles. Such an assertion may compel
those
who have little knowledge of the practice of geology,
but
we delude ourselves by falling back on such an illusory
hope.
The historical reality is that geology as a science was
224 I fully sympathize with the
deep desire of literalists to achieve a biblical
view
of geology and to bring unbelieving scientists to Christ. Nevertheless I
am
persuaded that their basic approach fails to achieve a proper view and
also
has had a detrimental effect within the scientific community.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 297
developed
largely by those who were active evangelical Chris-
tians or shaped to
some degree by Christian principles. The
force
of the accumulating data led to the understanding that
the
world is ancient and that there was no global flood. Chris-
tian geologists who loved Scripture and the
Lord were re-
peatedly confronted with
new discoveries that could not be
squared
with the traditional interpretations of the Bible. Chris-
tian geologists were compelled by the
observations they made
of
God's world to conclude that there had been no global
flood
and that their world was extremely old.225
5. The
idea of apparent age is an unacceptable way of facing the
issue.
There is only one way to avoid the force
of geological data
regarding
the history of earth, but one must be willing to face
the
consequences. That way is to take refuge in a literalism
that
insists on a series of purely miraculous, ex
nihilo, nearly
instantaneous,
fiat creations in six ordinary days and that
insists
on a flood in which the water was miraculously created
and
annihilated, physical effects were miraculously removed,
and
animals were miraculously transported to and from the
ark.
The result of this view is that any
evidence for the elaborate
history
and antiquity of the earth is purely illusory. On this
view
rocks are not old; they must be interpreted as indicating
appearance
of age and history only.226 Such a conclusion must
be
applied to all rocks that were formed prior to the beginning
of
human history. Only of rocks formed since human history
began,
that is, rocks not miraculously created, may it be said
that
they contain a historical record that can be reconstructed
from
internal evidence. All other rocks were miraculously
created
to look as they do; they did not go through any
process.
Not only basement rocks composed of igneous and
metamorphic
rocks, but virtually the entire column of sedi-
225 For aspects of the history
of geology see, for example, Charles C. Gil-
lispie, Genesis and Geology (New York: Harper,
1951), Roy Porter, The Making
of Geology (Cambridge
Press, 1977), Claude C. Albritton, The Abyss of Time
(San
Francisco: Freeman, Cooper, 1980).
226 The
apparent-age theory of creation was adopted in John C. Whitcomb
and
Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (
formed,
1962).
298
mentary rocks with
their enclosed fossil remains must be cre-
ated in place.
Despite scientific creationism's contention that
stratified
rocks were formed during human history by the
flood,
the evidence accumulated during the past two centuries
overwhelmingly
indicates that stratified rocks, as in the Grand
Canyon,
were deposited long before the appearance of hu-
mans.
Such rocks, if prehuman, would have been formed
during
the six days of creation and were therefore created in
place.
Proponents of this literalism must then be willing to
accept
the consequence that fossil elephant bones, fossil di-
nosaurs, and fossil
trees are illusions created in place, and
that
such "fossils" tell us absolutely nothing whatsoever about
formerly
existing elephants, dinosaurs, or trees.227
If we wish to avoid the force of the
geological data in dealing
with
the flood story we must also take the flood as a purely
miraculous
event. Physical mechanisms for the source and
draining
of floodwaters and migrations of animals land us
squarely
in contradictions and absurdities. Thus we must ul-
timately conclude that
the floodwater was miraculously cre-
ated and annihilated
and that the animals migrated and
emigrated
from the ark in a purely miraculous way. We must
accept,
too, the notion that all physical remains of the flood
were
miraculously eliminated from the earth, because there
is
no recognizable physical evidence for a global flood.228
227 If we choose to explain most
of the geological record in terms of mi-
raculous creation of
apparent age, then let us be consistent and give up all
efforts
to appeal to scientific evidence that supposedly indicates that the earth
is
young. If we want to appeal to scientific evidence, then let us be consistent
and
willingly accept that the evidence in total overwhelmingly points to long
historical
development. We cannot have it both ways by appealing to science
when
we think it supports a young earth and then appealing to apparent age
when
the evidence suggests antiquity.
228 The issue is not whether
there have been miracles in history or whether
God
can perform miracles. It is unquestioned that God can perform miracles
and
that he has performed miracles, e.g., the resurrection. The issue here is
only
whether the flood or the whole of the act of creation was purely mi-
raculous. For example,
if we postulate that God miraculously brought the
animals
to the ark and miraculously returned them to their native lands, we
could
ask why God bothered to put animals on the ark at all. If he wanted
to
preserve the animals why did he not just miraculously recreate them after
the
flood?
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 299
The idea of creation of the total rock
column with an ap-
pearance of age is so
fraught with problems that it ought to
be
rejected. Just as no theologian wants to work with a Bible
that
was suddenly created out of nothing and in which the
many
evidences of history in its composition were purely
lusory, and as no
individual wants to regard his life before
last
night as pure illusion, so no geologist wants to study rocks
whose
evidences for historical development are purely illu-
sory.
In addition, the idea of creation of
apparent age was not a
component
of Christian thinking until the mid-nineteenth cen-
tury. The idea,
proposed by Gosse229 and currently espoused
by
scientific creationism, was suggested only as a means of
evading
the force of geological data while retaining a tradi-
tional reading of
Genesis 1. So far as I am aware, neither the
church
fathers nor the Reformers ever held to the notion of
creation
of apparent age.
The literalistic, apparent-age view of
Genesis 1 and the
purely
miraculous view of the flood story are unduly rigid,
for
Scripture uses the terms "creation" and "create" in a
variety
of ways. Although bara’ always has God as its subject,
the
word does not necessarily imply creation ex
nihilo. The
context
must determine whether creation ex nihilo
is in view.
Although
bara’ might imply instantaneousness of
effectuation
in
some contexts, the word does not everywhere demand such
instantaneousness.
Although in some contexts bara’ might not
entail
secondary causes, process, and providence, the word
by
no means necessarily rules out secondary causes, process,
or
God's providential activity in every context. There are many
instances
in Scripture, for example, in the creating of
(Isa
43:1), the creating of the wind (Amos 4:13), the creating
of
animals (Ps 104:30), and the creating of future generations
of
people (Ps 102:18), where creation does not involve pure
miracle
and instantaneousness and does involve providence,
ordinary
processes, and means. These are not ex
nihilo crea-
tions. It is
therefore unwise, given the flexibility of the biblical
usage
of "create," to insist that creation in Genesis 1 involves
only
immediate, purely miraculous, instantaneous production
229 Philip H. Gosse, Omphalos (London:
J. Van Voorst, 1857).
300
of
every item out of nothing. Capable theologians have main-
tained otherwise for
centuries.
An instantaneously created, mature
creation that shows only
an
illusory history is also inconsistent with the nature of God
and
of man as God's imagebearer. In the absence of an in-
controvertible
word from the Lord that he has created an
illusion,
we must conclude that God would be deceiving us
by
placing us within a complex world which bears myriad
indications
of a complicated history that did not actually hap-
pen.230
Mature creation is also incompatible
with the character
of
man as one created in the image of God and given dominion
over
the earth. God has given us the mental tools with which
to
make sense of the world and placed us in a world that
makes
sense. In every sphere of intellectual endeavor we as-
sume the genuine
character of the world. Why should the
world's
past be any different? Why should our intellectual
tools
be mismatched against an illusory past in an effort which
God
blessed when he told us to "subdue the earth"?
Creation of apparent age also forces us
to conclude that it
is
impossible to carry out any scientific reconstruction of ter-
restrial history prior
to the advent of humankind. We can
study
the world scientifically only in terms of known or know-
able
processes. The past can be reconstructed scientifically
only
by analogy with what is known of the present. The only
history
that could legitimately be investigated scientifically
would
be that history which begins immediately upon con-
clusion of the
miraculous six-day creation. "Prior" to that
would
be off limits to scientific research. We could only state
of
anything produced before genuine history began, that it
was
created and that it bears only an illusion of history. Even
terrestrial
history that coincides with human history would be
230 Appeal in favor of the idea
of apparent age or mature creation is often
made
to Jesus' conversion of water into wine in John 2. However, in John
2,
the conversion is designated as a "sign" performed in full view of
the
servants
with the result that Jesus "revealed his glory, and his disciples put
their
faith in him." The same cannot be said of creation or the flood. There
were
no eye-witnesses to the creation, and the flood story is not presented
as
a "sign" and the details of the story imply predictable effects of a
lot of
water!
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 301
questionable
if a purely miraculous global flood had occurred
of
which all traces were miraculously annihilated.
If we adopt this approach we are
confronted with the prob-
lem of deciding exactly, and on
compelling grounds, how long
real
history is. When did creation cease and history begin?
Biblical
literalists and scientific creationists believe that real
history
is between 6,000 and 15,000 years long. Thus far, I
have
seen no compelling argument in favor of any specific
date
of creation.
Suppose that history began exactly
10,000 years ago. If so,
any
rock formed within the last 10,000 years could be studied
scientifically.
We could legitimately talk about the processes
involved
in the formation of that rock. We could talk about
its
being an igneous or sedimentary rock. We could legiti-
mately try to decide
just when it was formed and whether it
was
older or younger than some other rock nearby. But sup-
pose
we found some rocks that appeared to be older than
10,000
years. Then those rocks must have been created mi-
raculously during the six
days. It would be inconsistent with
our
Christian belief to study them scientifically, that is, to
attempt
to discover the processes by which they were formed.
Even
though the rocks might look like lava flows or sand-
stones,
we could not identify these rocks as igneous rocks or
sedimentary
rocks, for those terms imply processes. We could
not
even say anything about the relative age of those rocks
compared
with some other created rocks. We could not, for
example,
claim that the rocks were 20,000,000 years old while
some
rocks beneath them were 30,000,000 years old because
the
world was created 10,000 years ago. Therefore, created
rocks
are scientifically off limits.
But how do we decide that a rock was
created? How do we
determine
that a rock has an apparent age greater than 10,000
years?
How do we decide that a rock may not legitimately be
studied
by the methods of geological science? The only way
that
we can possibly demonstrate that a given rock is "older"
than
10,000 years, short of a direct biblical revelation which
we
do not have, is to presuppose the validity of the scientific
enterprise
and to carry out a scientific investigation of that
rock.
It is only through scientific argumentation that we can
claim
that rocks might be 100,000 years old or 16,000 years
302
old
or 2,000,000,000 years old. In order to claim that a rock
is
"old" and therefore created and that it may not be legiti-
mately studied
scientifically, we must study it scientifically. We
must
presuppose that which we are attempting to rule out!
Such
an approach is clearly destructive of the entire scientific
enterprise.
Any approach to creation which entails creation
of
illusory history ultimately undermines all scientific effort
and
should be rejected by the evangelical community.
6.
In view of the complexity of the issues, Christian scholars must
work in
community in an effort to arrive at a satisfactory understanding
of the
relationship between Scripture and the various sciences.
Too often evangelical scholars have
worked in isolated
groups.
The theologians have often worked without much
insight
into developments within geology or other sciences,
and
geologists have often worked independently of theolo-
gians. For example,
some of the harmonization schemes that
we
have reviewed, particularly the more recent ones, were
developed
by scientists working in relative isolation from bib-
lical scholars. It
seems to me that evangelicals can no longer
afford
to tackle the issue of origins without a lot of cooperative,
interdisciplinary
discussion. Evangelicalism will be successful
in
developing a fruitful understanding of the relationship be-
tween Scripture and
terrestrial history only if biblical scholars
work
closely with geologists, archeologists, anthropologists,
astronomers,
paleontologists, and historians and philosophers
of
science.
We can ill afford to remain in isolated
academic enclaves
shouting
at one another. Geologists ought to be more cautious
about
proposing interpretations of the biblical text on their
own
than we have been. In turn, biblical scholars ought to
be
more cautious in insisting that geologists reinterpret their
data
to conform to some traditional rendering of the text
when
they have little idea of the compelling force of those
data.
We will have to work together in the future.
7. Approaches
to Genesis 1 that stress the contemporary cultural,
historical, and
theological setting of ancient
and ought to be
worked out more fully.
Biblical scholars are, of course, the
ones who are qualified
to
indicate the direction in which biblical interpretation ought
to
go in the future and to work out the details of that program.
SCRIPTURE IN THE HANDS OF GEOLOGISTS 303
Thus
I make no original proposals of my own at this point.
Some
evangelical scholars have already begun to work in the
direction
that I am suggesting.231
I suggest that we will be on the right
track if we stop treating
Genesis
1 and the flood story as scientific and historical re-
ports.
We can forever avoid falling into the perpetual conflicts
between
Genesis and geology if we follow those evangelical
scholars
who stress that Genesis is divinely inspired ancient
near
eastern literature written within a specific historical con-
text
that entailed well-defined thought patterns, literary forms,
symbols,
and images. It makes sense that Genesis presents a
theology
of creation that is fully aware of and challenges the
numerous
polytheistic cosmogonic myths of
their
idolatrous worship of the heavenly bodies, of the ani-
mals, and of the
rivers by claiming that all of those things are
creatures
of the living God. The stars are not deities. God
brought
the stars into being. The rivers are not deities. God
brought
the waters into existence. The animals are not deities
to
be worshipped and feared, for God created the animals
and
controls them. Even the "chaos" is under the supreme
hand
of the living God. Thus Genesis 1 calmly asserts the
bankruptcy
of the pagan polytheism from which
drawn
and that constantly existed as a threat to
tinuing faithfulness to
the true God of heaven and earth.
As a sample of the kind of approach that
is potentially
fruitful,
we might consider Genesis 1 as a preamble to the
historical
prologue of the Sinaitic covenant as suggested by
Kline.232
If so, then Genesis 1 introduces the
great divine King
who
enters into covenant with his people
the
first chapter of the Bible we are made privy to the King's
council
chamber. We see the great King of the universe issuing
231 See, for example, Meredith G.
Kline, "Because It Had Not Rained,"
WTJ 20 (1958)
146-157; Henri Blocher, In the Beginning (
IL:
InterVarsity, 1984); Conrad Hyers,
The Meaning of Creation (
Knox,
1984) 1-114; Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Polemic
Nature of the Genesis
Cosmology,"
EvQ 46
(1974) 81-102; Bruce K. Waltke, "The Creation
Ac-
count
in Genesis 1:1-3," BSac
132 (1975) 327-342.
232 Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (
Eerdmans, 1972) 53.
304
a
series of royal decrees, bringing the ordered world into
permanent
being by his all-powerful, effective word. In Gen-
esis 1 the King
stakes out and establishes his realm, the sphere
of
his dominion. The King issues the royal decrees, "Let there
be,"
and the King's will is carried out.
The decrees of the divine King are
recorded as a set of
"minutes"
or "transactions" by analogy with the decrees of
earthly
kings. Thus we may view the days not as the first seven
earthly
days or periods of time, but as "days" of royal divine
action
in the heavenly realm. If we receive an impression of
chronology
from the chapter, it is a divine "chronology, " not
an
earthly one. Perhaps God's creative work is portrayed in
the
form of a group of seven days to signify completeness
and
perfection, thus establishing the weekly pattern of six
days
of work and one day of rest for
divine
"week."
God's final royal action is to set up
his image in his territory,
the
created universe. Thus man is set in the earth as God's
image
and given derived authority and dominion over the
King's
property.233
Clearly the previous paragraphs present
only the barest
outline
of how Genesis 1 might be viewed. There are many
unanswered
questions and many details to work out. More-
over,
the development of a new approach to the flood will
also
require the turning over of much new ground. But we
cannot
let fear of what lies ahead allow us to fall back into
the
old comfortable approaches and deter us from the task.
May
God give the entire evangelical community the grace and
courage
to work together in developing new and deeper in-
sight
into the character of his amazing creation and his in-
fallible
Word.
233 I am indebted to Professor
John Stek for his thoughts about Genesis 1
and
its extensive usage of royal-political metaphor.
:
2960
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium