Do the Revelations of Geology contradict scripture

Papers by Allan Reid (1855 - 1933)

DO THE REVELATIONS OF GEOLOGY CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE

13th January 1874: Read to London Road Literary Association

6th Febry 1874: Read to Excelsior

There is no nation, civilized or rude, but has an idea of a Supreme Being. Each has a god however mean to the point of which they attribute the causes of all triumphs or calamities that come to themselves individually and all national vicissitudes to which the earth is subject. In Nature, the naked and unenlightened savage recognises the presence of an Omnipotent Deity and stands in awe of him - dreading his anger and cherishing his favour. In this respect, the barbarian stands above many of his white brethren. The neglected savage acknowledges a power, while on the other hand, men of the highest standing, in this country and also abroad, altogether renounce it.

It is, therefore, our duty to get ourselves convinced of the presence of God in Nature and guard against that class of men who have been called the "Positive school of philosophy". They aver that we have no proof of the existence of God in Nature. They, however, allow that a force does exist. What that force is they cannot tell. It is this so-called "force" that we denominate God. Well might we exclaim with the poet:

And dare men dream that dismal chance has passed All that the eye perceives, or tongue has named; The spacious world and all its wonders born Designless, self-created, and forlorn".

There is still another class we would do well to avoid. They state that we cannot trace the hand of the Almighty in the world, except through the revelation of the Scriptures. This is going to another extreme - they accept one portion of the Bible and cast the other aside. Paul distinctly tells us that "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". Both sides then are derogatory to Scripture; if we accept either, we must accordingly discard the Bible; or if we hold it as the word of God, we must throw all such ideas as those mentioned to the winds.

Do the revelations of Geology contradict Scripture? This is a question that for a time troubled the minds of the scientific men of Europe. "In this field", says Dr Hitchcock an eminent theologian and geologist, "Christians have often broken lances with Infidels and also with one another." In the present time it is being as vigorously discussed as when brought forward for the first time: and in this so-called advanced age there are a few thick-headed, prejudiced and dogmatic fanatics who may be found to say that geology does contradict Scripture. To point out and correct (or at least endeavour to do so) (such an absurd idea) is my object in reading this paper tonight.

Some may consider it presumptuous on my part to attempt to discuss such a subject as this; after the able treatment it has received from many celebrated geologists. That such may be the case I will neither deny nor attempt to controvert such a statement.

True it is, many substantial reconciliations of Geology with Scripture have been written but others have been brought forward by persons who, in endeavouring to be wise and serious became absurd and consequently these theories have fallen to the ground being unable to stand the necessary tests. Although this subject is introduced now when it has been pretty thoroughly discussed; still, to the student, it is an interesting and instructive study.

I think it will be as well before going into the minutiae of the subject, to glance first at the rocks which compose the crust of the earth. These divide naturally into two great sections:- stratified and unstratified. These divisions are obvious to everyone, and anyone can at once notice the difference between the two varieties. That stratified rocks owe their origin to water and the unstratified to fire has been proved beyond doubt. Such conclusions are not the result of mere guess work; but of years of patient research and study. The geologist made the changes of the past physical aspect of our planet by laws and agencies at present at work on our globe - He sees volcanoes sending out lava which when cooled and hardened differs but slightly if at all from Trap or Whinstone; therefore from this fact and from the position in which Whinstone is formed, he very naturally concludes that it is a species of lava. He also observes the rivers, seas and rain wearing away the rocks and transporting the matter thus denuded to some sea, estuary or lake and there deposit in layers: consequently he avers that all stratified rocks have been formed in the same manner. Someone has very quaintly but beautifully remarked: "The mills of God grind slow but they grind small". After reading this paper I will leave it to yourselves to judge as to the truth of this statement.

Having then taken a hasty glance at the origin of the rock formations of our planet, we may now deal with the question before us: - "Do the revelations of Geology contradict Scripture?". In first place, to such a question I answer with a most emphatic "No"! and will endeavour to lay before, as lucidly as I possibly can, the reasons for giving such a response.

Some poor, thoughtless and narrow-minded individuals have thought proper to say that the facts or ideas of the Geologist concerning the creation and beginning of the world to be at direct variance with the account given by Moses. What seemed to be the most glaring objection to the geological record was the high antiquity it was necessary to assign to the earth.

The Geologist declares the earth is of very high antiquity: first from the fact that it would take a vastly greater length of time than 6,000 or even 60,000 years to deposit the stratified rocks of our globe; and secondly from what at once strikes the student on looking at the fossils of the various strata, namely the great number of species that from the first have "died out" and in some formations the appearance of species that are totally unlike any found in other formations, earlier or later.

Let us look for a short time at the first of these heads. That we must allow a longer space of time than 6,000 years for the deposition of the stratified rocks must be patent to any of reflective mind. If all the different varieties of rock with their greatest depth were placed one upon the top of the other, we should find that the thickness would be something like 10 miles. Surely for one to say that such a huge quantity of matter as that has been, or could be, deposited in 6,000 years is equally out of place and absurd. We must also allow a considerable time for the rising and subsiding of the crust of the earth. That portions of the earth have from time to time been elevated and again depressed is evident from the many different kinds of rock. We also see that same process going on in our own day: the Northern parts of Greenland are at present rising and the Southern portion sinking and the same thing is taking place in Norway.

I have already hinted that it is necessary that we grant much more than 6,000 years for the formation of this planet because from the fossils embedded in the stratified rock we find that since plants and animals were first created, many species have disappeared and new ones have taken their places. Darwin has very nicely pictured the dilemma in which this fact places geologists: he writes, "So profound is our ignorance and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being: and as we do not know the cause we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life". Some have adverted what is here mentioned but I think it is scarcely necessary - That it required an immense period of time for a family of animals to die out, we are bound, ay compelled to admit when we learn that since man's appearance on the earth only two classes of animals have been known to have disappeared. I will now endeavour to reconcile this with the scriptural account.

Up till a comparatively recent period, commentators and chronologists checked back about 6,000 years to the beginning and creation of the world, but the dawning of geological science cast a new light over the nature of things and put forward many substantial arguments to the effect that it was impossible that the earth as we now inhabit it could have been formed in such a short space of time. That a setting aside the idea that the earth as it now is was created by a miracle. What motive could the All-wise Being have in bringing the world into existence by means of a miracle when the same end could be attained by the working of the laws of nature, which remain unchanged under his direct superintendence?

If we turn to the first chapter of Genesis, first verse, we find an introduction that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Moses does not here specify any particular time, nor do we find elsewhere in the Bible any day mentioned as being the beginning of all things. "In the beginning" - when that was no man can tell: and none has attempted to discover. Thus we see the Geologist is quite at liberty to date as far back as he thinks proper: while I argue it is at variance with the Mosaic account of the creation if any man affix a definite period as this beginning.

On turning to the Hebrews we find that the word translated day in our English version of the Bible means a period of time. This removes the greatest barrier that hindered many from acquiescing in the geologist's idea of the creation. Thus if we give this word its proper signification, we have at times a corroboration of the facts established by the Geologist. What is the length of these days is beyond the reach of our finite mind, fairly to comprehend; they may have been thousands and in all likelihood millions of years. I think that it has been pretty clearly shown that the two records do not here contradict one another; although at first sight they seem to do so: and also that the formation of earth as now tenanted by Man occupied a vast number of years.

I have stated that many reconciliations of the two records have been produced. The one most generally adopted I think is that of Hugh Miller which he gives in his lecture on "The two records Mosaic and Geological". Although not perfect still it sets down the truth in its proper light. He says "I find myself called upon as a Geologist to account for but 3 of the 6 days. Then taking the words of Dr Thos Chalmers - "The writings of Moses do not fix the antiquity of the globe" - he strives by a considerate amount of reasonings to show that the three great Geological epochs, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cainozoic are respectively analogous to the third, fifth and sixth days of creation and accordingly not days of our computation, but periods of time of an indefinite length.

Others, in their anxiety to reconcile the two records under the somewhat antiquated notion that the earth has only been in existence for 6,000 years, have attributed all changes which the earth has undergone since the beginning to the Noachian Deluge. Were such the case, the fossils embedded in the rocks would be scattered promiscuously throughout all formations; but as one, I think Dr Hitchcock, has remarked these "are as well arranged in as much order as the specimens of a well regulated cabinet". In the earlier epochs we find very lowly type of plants and animals; but as we ascend the series they gradually rise in more elaborate and highly organised forms, till we come to Man who is the Crowning form of existence.

Had the rocks of our planet been deposited by the Noachian deluge we should find the remains of Man and his handiwork at a much earlier period than we do: and also all or at least the majority of the organic remains should be analogous to plants and animals still extant. As it is, however, not the slightest trace of man is seen till we ascend almost to the top of series. The idea that all changes to which the earth has been subjected are due to the deluge of Noah, has been almost universally thrown aside; as Nature is being studied more closely and consequently Nature and scripture are being better understood. Very few, if any, of the geologists of the present day think there is any trace of the Noachian Deluge on the earth. This is not, as some take it to be, a contradiction of the record of the flood as given by Moses. All the geologist says, and it is in no way derogatory to Scripture, is that if any deposition of matter occurred during this deluge, we cannot recognise it from the deposits of an earlier or more recent date.

Some people have objected to the assertion made by geologists that Man's appearance on the earth is comparatively quite a recent event in the history of the world and geologically speaking a thing of yesterday.

I might here have said one thing of the "Descent of Man" but as it is rather distant from our subject I need not take up the question. In passing I might say that Dr Chas Darwin would perhaps had done better had he not published his work on that subject. Still, however, I will say that no man has done more for Geology and Natural History than the same Dr Chas Darwin. Those who may doubt this statement would do well to peruse some of his publications, and in so doing, they will discover that even his theory on the "Descent of Man", which has made him obnoxious to man, is based on a sound foundation. (Hear, Hear)? We have only to bring up the old argument to show that man did not appear on earth until, as already said, a comparatively recent date, and in fact not until it had been prepared as a habitation for him. In all the revolutions and vicissitudes through which the world has passed, we cannot fail to perceive the progressive improvement that has been made. That Man, with his present physical nature, could not have sustained himself in many of the geologic eras is now an acknowledged fact. If we take the carboniferous era it naturally follows that the atmosphere would contain a huge proportion of Carbonic Acid Gas to support the gorgeous flora that flourished in these times which would have rendered his living an impossibility. Again, it is more than possible that man could not have maintained his own with the gigantic reptiles and mammalia of the Oolitic and Tertiary periods. And to come to still more recent times, we must question the probability of Man being able to sustain himself during the "Glacial period". After taking all these things into due consideration, we conclude that the creation of Man was delayed till the earth had been prepared as a habitation for him: and then, when the creative fiat had been pronounced, he stepped forth in all the majesty and beauty of a perfect being, chief of the works of the Creator.

If we translate the word "day" properly we are compelled to allow that instead of only a few days intervening between the creation of the world and that many myriads of years had past away.

And now:- I have done my utmost to prove that Geology does not contradict Scripture, or at least the Mosaic record of Creation, which some persons have had the boldness to aver that it did. We have seen that almost the only thing that makes any difference between the two records is the misconstruction put on the word "day" in our English version of the Bible. Thus, although geology perhaps does not altogether corroborate the facts stated by Moses, it does not and I will say cannot contradict Scripture.

In the foregoing I place as much stress on the testimony of the Geologist as upon the record we have in the first chapter of Genesis. Be assured if there seems to be any inconsistencies between the two records, it is owing to our own mistranslation or misconception of either the one or other. As professed Christians we accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, inspired by Him: and therein we are taught that "God created the heavens and the earth". Can there, I ask. Can the works of the Almighty, "the God that cannot lie" and with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, be at variance with His word?

And now, a euphenism, into your hands as impartial and conscientious judges, I resign the subject, that you may decide as to whether or not I have thoroughly shown that the idea of geology being at variance with Scripture is false. If I have failed to do justice to so great a subject I hope you will make allowance for youth and inexperience. Such subjects as this ought to make us more diligent in meditating on the works of Him who is excellent in counsel, wonderful in working.

#######################################################################

NOTES APPENDED TO SUBJECT "DO THE REVELATIONS OF GEOLOGY CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE"

If Geology does not corroborate the facts of Scripture as a science it is imperfect or Science falsely so-called.

Revelation is above all science - As science is perfected, discrepancies disappear and facts and discoveries co-incide.

Don't say, Can they? But say, they can't. If a deluge - Why no deposition of matter? Geology is yet an infinite

Query:- Do you actually find 10 miles of rock in height or depth or both anywhere? If you don't your argument goes for nothing

God is great - Neither can the number of his years be searched out "and in his sight a thousand years are but as one day"