Birth Geology

The Birth of Geology and the Decline of Young-Earth Creationism in Europe

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

People have always been curious about the origin of the Earth and how old it is. Over the centuries, several individuals attempted to date Earth history by using the genealogies and events of the Old Testament (Dalrymple 1991, p. 14). Among the various chronologies derived from the Old Testament, James Ussher's (c. 1650 AD) is the most famous and his dates still appear in the margins of some King James Bibles. James Ussher, like modern young-Earth creationists (YECs), had a strong bias in favor of Genesis and rejected the validity of any conflicting historical/mythical records. For example, records of the Egyptian dynasties were available to him. However, since some of the Egyptian records dated events before his Genesis creation date of 4004 BC, Ussher dismissed them as “mythical” (Rudwick 1999, p. 251).

While young-Earth creationism was widely accepted and taken for granted in 17th century Europe (Rudwick 1999, p. 250), Oard and Reed (2009, p. 7) readily admit to the decline in support for young-Earth creationism beginning in the late 18th and into the 19th centuries. Reed (2009), Oard (2009a), and the Preface of Oard and Reed (2009) also briefly review the rise of 19th century uniformitarianism and increased skepticism of Flood geology. They cite a number of references, including two books by M. J. S. Rudwick (2005; 2008), an admirable historian that summarized the development of geology as a science. Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed correctly discuss a number of misconceptions related to the late 18th- and early 19th-century “war” between geology and religion. Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 11) are correct when they quote Rudwick (2005, p. 116) and Rudwick (2008, p. 5) as describing the “war” as a simplistic myth. Gould (1987, p. 9-10, 15, 134, etc.) also argues that Lyell's opposition to 19th century old-Earth catastrophism was based more on his biases for uniformity and cycles in time rather than field evidence. Geologic history does not necessarily repeat itself.

Although the history of geology summarized so thoroughly by Rudwick (2005; 2008) is not hostile to Christianity, the birth of field geology in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was overwhelmingly bad news for YEC sects. It must be remembered that Cuvier and other catastrophistic opponents of Lyell had at least one relevant point in common with Lyell. They all opposed the “scriptural geology” (young-Earth creationism) of their day (Rudwick 2008, p. 345, 564; Gould 1987, p. 112-113). YEC Austin (1979, p. 33) also admits that 19th catastrophists were not supporters of supernatural geology:

“It would, therefore, be incorrect to maintain that supernatural interventions of the normal operations of nature formed a necessary or characteristic tenet of catastrophist theory. Methodological uniformitarianism [a commitment to the constancy of natural laws] was accepted as requisite for geological investigation of earth history.” [original emphasis]

While I'm sure there were 19th century YECs that studied geology, Rudwick (2008, p. 5) did not consider any of them relevant enough to include in his book on the history of early 19th century geological science:

“Here it is necessary only to emphasize that all the geologists with whom this book is concerned were convinced that geohistory had been played out on a timescale of humanly inconceivable magnitude (though they had as yet no means to put reliable figures to it). The many who were also religious believers saw no conflict between their geology and their understanding of the Creation stories in Genesis; they had long since learned that it was a religious mistake to treat biblical texts as if they were scientific sources, because an inappropriate literalism deflected attention away from religious meaning.” [original emphasis]

Rudwick (2005, p. 116) also writes the following summary of western European 18th-19th century attitudes towards the “short timescale” of the Genesis Creation Week:

“The short timescale was still taken for granted, throughout the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth, among less educated groups in society and in conservative religious circles (and it was of course revived in the twentieth century among American fundamentalists). But by the later eighteenth century most savants who took any interest in such matters recognized that it had become incompatible with a wide range of natural evidence... [references omitted]. Those who were religious believers assumed that Nature, 'the book of God's works', could not ultimately contradict Scripture, 'the book of God's word', so if the natural evidence seemed sound and persuasive, they simply inferred that the short timescale, in its application to the age of the world, must be based on mistaken assumptions.” [emphasis in the original]

In other words, many educated and sincere Bible-believing people accepted the field results and embraced old-Earth creationism. Contrary to the desires of Reed and Oard (2009a), the field evidence demonstrably invalidated the YEC worldview for these Christians. So, old-Earth creationism largely replaced young-Earth creationism among European scholars.

Now, Oard and Reed (2009, p. 7) might accuse early 19th century old-Earth creation scientists of giving “lip service” to the Bible and giving an “excuse” for clergy to follow their lead in exhorting that old-Earth creationism is compatible with Genesis. However, Rudwick (2005, p. 117) argues just the opposite:

“Even if the text of Genesis were taken to be authoritative and divinely inspired, it had been widely recognized among scholars - ever since Patristic times - that the seven 'days' of creation were not necessarily to be understood as ordinary days; for example, the first three of them was said to have preceded the creation of the sun itself, without which ordinary days were literally impossible; and in prophetic language 'the day of the Lord' clearly did not denote a period of twenty-four hours but a time of decisive significance. So when, in the course of the eighteenth century, it seemed to savants to be increasingly likely that the earth had existed long before the few millennia of recorded human history, the 'days' of creation were simply reinterpreted in line with that philological scholarship, as periods of distinctive character but indefinite extension.”

Rudwick's reference to “Patristic times” may be referring to some statements by St. Augustine in the 5th century AD. Until the 17th century, both geocentricism and 24-hour Genesis creation days were the dominant, if not the sole, views in Christianity. In the 17th century, attitudes toward the length of the Genesis creation days began to significantly change. For example, Thomas Burnet was open to longer interpretations for the Genesis days (Gould 1987, p. 5; 40; also see here and here). Gould (1987, p. 40) states:

“Burnet favored an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1, arguing that the notion of a ‘day’ could not be defined before the sun’s creation on the fourth day.”

By the early 19th century when geologists (especially catastrophists) argued that the geologic record was very ancient, even religious European scientists and other intellectuals had no problem accepting the evidence and embracing old-Earth creationism.

Rudwick (2008, p. 564) also states the following about early 19th century European geologists:

“For example, those savants who came to be called geologists, whether or not they regarded themselves as religious believers, treated the question of the timescale of geohistory as having been settled long ago and once and for all. In their opinion it had become clear beyond question that the timescale was vast, far beyond the whole of recorded human history and indeed literally beyond human imagination, even though no quantitative figures could be attached to it. Some of them saw a parallel between the emerging scientific picture of geohistory and the poetic imagery of the first Creation story in Genesis, but others rejected any such parallel or simply had no interest in the matter. But all of them repudiated the 'scriptural geology' propounded by some of their contemporaries among the general public (almost exclusively in the anglophone world), with its insistence on a 'short timescale' of no more than a few millennia for the whole of cosmic history.” [Rudwick's emphasis]

References

Austin, S.A. 1979. “Uniformitarianism- A Doctrine that Needs Rethinking”, The Compass, v. 56, n. 2, pp. 29-45.

Dalrymple, G.B. 1991. The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA, 474pp.

Gould, S.J. 1987. Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 222pp.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Reed, J.K. 2009. “Fossil Distribution in the Flood,” chapter 12 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 207-215.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Rudwick, M. 1999. “Geologists' Time: A Brief History” in K. Lippincott, U. Eco, E.H. Gombrich et al., The Story of Time, Merrell Holberton Publishers, London, UK, 304pp.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2005. Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 708pp.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds Before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 614pp.