Why is Young Earth Creationism so appealing?

Appeal of Young Earth Creationism

 

Forty years ago creationism and anti-Darwinism was almost unknown outside the USA but today it is common throughout the world and results in conflicts in various religions and over education. The roots of creationism are in American fundamentalism and the modern movement effectively dates from 1961. Since the 80s creationism has grown throughout the world influencing faiths, education and museums. 

 

Creationism has grown within evangelical Christianity, which often tends to take the Bible literally. Within Europe this has resulted in pressure to make science teaching critical of evolution and to recognise creationism as valid science. So far this has been rejected within the UK and EU. 

 

  The growing evangelicalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America is dominantly creationist, and is beginning to impact on education, though there has been pressure to alter anthropological displays in Nairobi museums and to teach Creationism in various countries.  

 

            It is difficult to give a clear picture of creationism as the situation is confused. One thing is clear; Creationism will be at the centre of controversy both in world faiths and in education for many years to come. 

To many YEC is simply absurd but simply saying that will not help. We need to understand why some Christians believe it so fervently

 

Answers magazine, Oct-Dec 2014 issue

The appeal of YEC cannot be understood without grasping the deeply felt reasons for believing what many scientists think nonsense. YEC provides the “scientific” capping to a “biblical world view,” which provides an all-embracing outlook on life and integrates every aspect of life. It enables one to oppose non-Christian world views and to be confident in the “Culture Wars.” Recently many evangelicals have stressed the uniqueness of the biblical world view against the secular world view, which may look to science for its justification. This is expounded, for example by John MacArthur of The Master’s College in California in Think Biblically (MacArthur, 2003) and on the AIG Web site.

 

The reasons for accepting YEC are interrelated and are threefold being theological, moral and anti-reductionist. These predicate the scientific objections to “evolution” and are more than adherence to a literal Bible.
The most important reason for accepting YEC is a concern for salvation through Christ. The heart of evangelical faith is redemption through the death of Christ, expressed as (penal) Substitutionary Atonement in that Jesus’ death on the cross forgives sin and takes away the penalty of death. This goes back to St. Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. Since the late eighteenth century, the corollary of an ancient earth was that animals were living and dying long before humans, thus most evangelicals have limited the “death” brought about by the Fall to humans, and regard animal death as of no consequence to the atonement. However some evangelicals in the early nineteenth century, for example George Bugg, and YECs today argue otherwise and that physical death came in at the Fall (Genesis 3), and that the Fall resulted in a Curse over all creation, and before that no animal died or suffered. If T. Rex had actually attacked and killed herbivores 100million years ago, then the whole Christian Faith will collapse like dominoes, hence the geological timescale must be false. This is at the heart of YEC arguments as expounded by Sarfati (2004, Refuting Evolution pp. 195–224), and Whitcomb in the appendix to The Genesis Flood (Morris and Whitcomb, 1961). Carefully presented (with evangelistic overtones) this is crucial.
The authority of the Bible is central to evangelicals, who often interpret it in its plain or literal sense. For early Genesis, that means creation in six days and a worldwide flood. A Young Earth model supports this “scientifically,” so YEC is the only valid interpretation. A further “biblical” appeal is the Sabbath as the day of rest. The Fourth Commandment reads, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work. . . . for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20 vs 8–11). Hence the Sabbath is dependent on a six-day creation and thus “billions” of years must be wrong. To reject this is to reject the Commandments.
Hence the biblical arguments for YEC are threefold,

first, upholding the plain sense of scripture, which is inerrant in history and science,

second, buttressing salvation through Christ’s death, dependent on no death before the Fall, and

third, defending the Commandments .

As these are essential to evangelical belief then a Christian must be YEC. The appeal is irresistible. Well, almost.
To understand why YEC beliefs have grown in the Anglican Church, the approach of evangelicals like Richard Blackham are very instructive. He was curate of All Souls Langham Place under Richard Bewes for many years and has a particular perspective on the bible. Briefly he seeks to interpret the Bible without external influences and thus no input from any other knowledge. On Genesis and creation that means that he ignores science and opts for a literal interpretation. i.e a theological argument for YEC. This has manifest itself on his video on Genesis for the Open Bible series, produced while at All Souls. This caused controversy at All Souls as several members, with scientific backgrounds saw this as moving from the classic evangelicalism of John Stott to fundamentalism. More recently Blackham has been working with John Mackay on a creationist understanding of Genesis.

This self-sufficient and internally-consistent world-view and very appealing as it is a very strong faith position, which appears to give a powerful challenge to secularism and any alternative religion. Its Achilles heel is on biblical literalism in relation to Genesis and if that is not accepted the worldview collapse like a line of dominoes.

Moral concerns, particularly over eugenics, motivated the antievolutionists of the 1920s and the Scopes trial . YEC has amplified this position and stress that evolution leads to immorality of every kind. In his book The Genesis Solution (Ham and Taylor 1988, p. 97). Ham argues that evolution leads to a decrease in marriage, an increase of suicides, euthanasia, pornography, abortions, promiscuity, sexual abuse, homosexuality, theft, violence, racism, etc.

evolution leads to a decrease in marriage, an increase of suicides, euthanasia, pornography, abortions, promiscuity, sexual abuse, homosexuality, theft, violence, racism, etc.

Hence evolution is contrary to family values. The concern to counter teaching evolution partly stems from this.
A further appeal of YEC is the opposition to Reductionism, or Nothingbuttery as Donald Mackay called it. This is the view that everything is nothing but physics and chemistry and that there is nothing distinct about humans. Reductionism often stems from a scientific materialist philosophy. Opposition to reductionism is by no means restricted to YECs. Many oppose reductionism. Arthur Peacocke, the British biochemist and clergyman, opposed reductionism for decades from a liberal theology and founded the Society of Ordained Scientists in 1986 to facilitate this. John Polkinghorne, Donald Mackay, and many evangelical members of the CIS also oppose Reductionism. However YEC is extreme antireductionism. When these arguments are put before an evangelical audience the appeal of YEC becomes compelling. Anyone who to challenges them, and “scientific arguments” for YEC are compromising the Gospel. That is why such beliefs are so tenacious. The argument is more over deeply held religious convictions than intellectual ones. Recent anti-evolutionism is often bound up with the Religious Right and family values, but one must ask whether the motivation is the control of education or religious belief. All YECs I know of are so because of religious rather than political or educational convictions. It may be hard to understand their outlook if one is not “religious” and thus one may look for a nonreligious explanation in line with the secular outlook of Western academic culture. But this often fails to understand their motivation. One must grasp the religious and moral appeal of YEC in order to understand the movement and how it has developed. The scientific arguments are beyond the wit of most people, but the average evangelical will understand why the blood of Christ washes away his sin, even if he cannot evaluate the arguments for and against the decay of the speed of light.

Hence acceptance of Young earth Creationism supports one’s Christian faith in a world which can be hostile to Christianity

 

Advertisements

Scaremongering on health effects of fracking in Lancashire

17th November 2017. Today Gina Dowding and 11 others were found guilty of obstructing the public highway outside the fracking site on Preston New Road in July 2017. Of these 12 3 were various councillors and all argued about their concerns for health and water contamination and appealed to the slogan #wesaidno. dowding said after the hearing that they opposed this “pernicious and perverted ” industry

Here is drillordrop’s  account!! https://drillordrop.com/2017/11/17/cuadrilla-fracking-protest-trial-12-guilty-of-obstruction-but-cleared-on-trades-union-charges/

Dowding has been active in opposing shale gas, mostly on health grounds, for several years, despite her concerns not being accepted by Public Health England and other bodies. Her claims are not upheld by Public Health England and thus were rejected by the chief planning officer of Lancs County Council in 2015. She wrote up her claims for the CIEH in 2014 and here is a brief rebuttal of them. It seems that in the last three years these personal unsubstantiated opinions have not changed.

dscf6015

I find it concerning that a health professional rejects the findings of Public Health England along with her fellow protesters.

It is difficult not to see her concerns as rather hyped and not founded in proper research, but this is the approach of many who oppose fracking  – and the Green Party

********************************************************************************

Lancashire County Council has recently considered the health impact of two proposed fracking sites. Gina Dowding, Lancashire’s Green Party councillor and a former NHS health promotion officer, outlines her personal view of the key health risks.

The CIEH’s assessment of the risks is available here:

http://www.ehn-online.com/news/article.aspx?id=13110

 

 

1. Climate Change
1
The greatest threat to future wellbeing is climate change. It is now recognised that 70 per cent of known fossil fuels need to stay in the ground if we are to avoid more than two degrees of global warming. It is imperative that the UK takes the lead on this and concentrates on investment in renewable energy development instead of new fossil fuel exploration and extraction. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recently issued again stark warnings that urgent action is required now.

A popular and simplistic argument. She does not say which fossil fuels need to stay in the ground and doesn’t point out shale gas is cleaner than coal and thus the best solution now, in the absence of anything better. Further renewables produce only 5% of world’s energy so there cannot be a rapid transition. In the USA use of gas has resulted in a reduction of emissions thus help Climate Change. The IPCC saw an important place for the use of shale gas, so this reflects an incomplete reading of the IPCC reports

This shows how much energy must be produced to replace fossil fuels

 

2. Air quality
2
Venting and incomplete flaring of shale gas will lead to the release of benzenes and other known carcinogens. In the US fugitive gas levels around sites have been found to be up to 100 times more than predicted.

There will be no venting and flaring when drilling is complete. She is misinformed here. Further, flaring only happens before production if at all. Venting or flaring is simply losing money. What evidence does she have of benzenes and carcinogens? That sounds a scarestory. On fugitive levels this seems like an allusion to the discredited Howarth paper

3. Water pollution

The risk of well leaks is a chronic problem that the oil and gas industry do not know how to fix. Studies (such as by Schlumberger published in Oilfield Review) admit that 6 per cent of wells leak immediately with 50 per cent leaking in 15 years – leaving a potential toxic legacy that may irreversibly damage underground water supplies.

This is just nonsense. Out of 2200 wells on the English mainland only a few have had minor leaks. Again much exaggeration

4. Flowback Fluid
The flowback fluid produced by the process contains toxic chemicals, heavy metals and radioactive materials. There are concerns about sufficient capacity to treat hazardous: In Lancashire and at peak times one of the proposed sites alone will utilise a major proportion of the available treatment capacity within 100 miles of the site (based on radiation levels and physical treatment capacity).

Yes, flowback is nasty enough not to be put into watercourses, but it isn’t much worse than the Dead Sea for chemical. The radioactive NORMS present are fairly low level Many of us have survived swimming in the Dead Sea!! The flowback from Preese Hall was cleaned to EA standards by Remsol and then disposed off according to regulations. Remsol says treatment is not a big deal.  Cuadrilla have treatments ready for the flow back. This is blatant scaremongering

5. Chemicals
The chemicals used in the Fracking process in the US have been linked to cancers and low birth weight in infants. Breast Cancer UK have called for a moratorium on all exploration and licensing due to their concerns about the potentially adverse health effects.

She is relying on the list of 600+ chemicals which HAVE been used in the USA, rather than the handful of non-carcinogenic which will be used in the UK – Water 99.5%, sand , polyacrylamide, possibly HCl and a biocide. In other words are benign solution despite what Friends of the Earth claimed in 2015 https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/how-fiendish-is-friends-of-the-earth/  The ASA forced them to withdraw their claims. Breast Cancer UK ‘s report was very dodgy and partially retracted https://drillordrop.com/2015/06/10/guest-post-ex-oil-man-explains-why-he-reported-anti-fracking-leaflets/ See also Dr James Verdon   http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-cieh-and-me-full-discussion.html

foe-leaflet-cover

 

6. Transport related accidents
6
Site visits undertaken in Lancashire show that HGVs with large loads e.g. 40ft trailers for office space and work space would have difficulty safely negotiating the narrow rural roads in proximity to the project sites. But there are long-term traffic implications once drilling is underway. The Lancashire Roseacre Awareness group are highlighting the risk of accidents and the impact of traffic on their rural villages.

This is not the case for Preston New Road and she should have said so. This is despite all the protests at PNR on 2017. This is more of a problem for Roseacre but is not a serious as she implies. Her best argument!!!!

7. Noise
7
Health effects that may result from community noise are well documented and include interference with communication; effects on sleep, and on the cardiovascular and psycho-physiological systems and noise-induced hearing impairment. Drilling is planned 24 hours a day, including nighttime; it is expected that the noise levels will be continuous for at least 14 months.

This is sheer overstatement. The noise is minimal and can hardly be heard beyond a hundred yards.  Even by the rig, when in operation (I have visited it), you can speak quietly and not find the noise unpleasant. Pure exaggeration. Far worse, is to live on most streets in towns!!

8 Occupational health risks
8
There is limited evidence on occupational health risks due to cumulative exposure to silica dust, noise and air pollution during shale gas exploration in the UK context. The concern is that there are no specific occupational health standards for onshore oil and gas extraction.

There are plenty of regulations for any industrial process

9. Emergencies
9
Local residents have anxiety over emergency scenarios. Although emergency planning is a requirement for this type of development, this process has not been ‘visible’ to residents. Anxiety fuelled by uncertainty over this issue could potentially have wider health impacts than the risks themselves

This is grasping at straws as are the worries of anxiety. That anxiety is induced by misinformation like this article. I wonder if any local residents were concerned before they were fed with this type of alleged problem.

10. Inadequate regulation
10
Perhaps most significantly Lancashire’s Health Impact Assessment report acknowledges that the current regulations in place in the UK which are there to protect the public’s health are inadequate to properly regulate the fracking industry. The report notes that the lack of public trust and confidence, is causing stress and anxiety from uncertainty, that could lead to poor mental wellbeing. At the very least the government should heed calls from public health bodies, campaigners and the public alike that industry specific regulation must be introduced before fracking takes hold in the UK.

This is a favourite argument and is put forward forcibly by Mike Hill. Regulations are in place and all aspects are being monitored by the appropriate bodies. Dowding’s paper was written in 2014 and here refers to a report of 2014. By 2015 the Planning Officer using reports from PHE etc concluded there was not a concern here, except demanding that noise levels were reduced. This was carried out by Cuadrilla.

Today 17/11/17 Dowding argued that regulations were still insufficient

Problems of “the lack of public trust and confidence, is causing stress and anxiety from uncertainty” were largely inflamed by anti-fracking groups of which Dowding was active in. Of course, people get anxious when fed with plausible scare stories.

As it happens all her possible concerns on regulation were dealt with before  permission was granted by the Secretary of State in late 2016.

ALARA : An alternative policy tool to the precautionary principle

 

Often the Precautionary principle is used as the Ace of Trumps.

However if it had been applied in the past nothing would have been done – think of Telford’s bridges. His bridge to Anglesey would never had been built .

railways would have been throttled at birth – as some want

Read on with ALARACITY!!

The Risk-Monger

This blog was originally published on 9 February 2011 and is reblogged here from my old site (which has now had all referencing removed). Today, as the precautionary principle has failed miserably to deliver regulatory service to Europeans (most recently with the glyphosate debacle), maybe alternatives should be considered. ALARA is common sense.
I have added a postscript comparing how ALARA and precaution would lead to different results in the glyphosate policy process.

In my last blog, I briefly outlined seven reasons why the EU’s dependence on the precautionary principle (EEA interpretation) as its main environmental-health policy tool was destructive (to the public trust in science, to the environment, to public health and to a sustainable supply chain). Although a natural impulse, precaution uses a non-scientific logic that allows it to be manipulated by environmental activists and policy-makers. It should be relegated as a policy tool and certain EU directives…

View original post 1,793 more words

Green Party leader claims that fracking tax won’t be paid by offshore companies

DSCF1047

On Friday 10th November 2017 the co-leader of the Green Party visited the gas site at Kirby Misperton and gave a speech at the entrance. This story is going to run and run and gather moss as it goes. We will have how the police mistreated the leader of a political party and that all potential tax revenues will be lost as the company is offshore.
Here’s the video
https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.c.bartley/videos/1515865808504613/
First, we note that on several occasions the police asked him to move. He then sat down and was dragged away by the police.
He gave a normal green spiel but from 2.10ff he claimed “The Government is using tax payers’ money to subsidise tax-dodging frackers. All fossil fuel subsidies are unacceptable but to use tax breaks to help a company keeping its wealth in an offshore tax haven is obscene”, (cited from Left Foot Forward but what I transcribed too)
Clearly if this were so then Britain could lose billions in tax. That would be worrying and is an excellent scarestory
As was reported by an anti-fracking group

“The Government is using tax payers’ money to subsidise tax-dodging frackers. All fossil fuel subsidies are unacceptable but to use taxes to help a company keeping trillions of pounds of wealth in an offshore tax haven is beyond the pale. “Fracking is dirty, dangerous and unnecessary. It will destroy our climate commitments and leave us dependent on fossil fuel for years to come. The community in Kirby Misperton have made it clear they don’t want it here. Instead of overriding their wishes in its desperate dash for gas the Government should be investing in modern, clean energy for the future.”

Here are two reports repeating this
https://leftfootforward.org/2017/11/a-tax-dodging-fracking-company-is-about-to-start-drilling-in-yorkshire/

Here is an extract citing Bartley

Third Energy Holdings, the parent company of Third Energy which is set to start fracking in North Yorkshire within days, is registered in the Cayman Islands, making it exempt from UK corporation tax, it’s been revealed by the Green Party.
Fracking companies are already subsidised by taxpayers, enjoying a 50 per cent tax cut on early profits thanks to George Osborne’s 2013 budget — that these companies are trying to get out of paying even this is astounding.
“The Government is using tax payers’ money to subsidise tax-dodging frackers. All fossil fuel subsidies are unacceptable but to use tax breaks to help a company keeping its wealth in an offshore tax haven is obscene”, Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader said today whilst visiting the site.

And also

https://leftinsider.uk/2017/11/10/a-tax-dodging-fracking-company-is-about-to-start-drilling-in-yorkshire/

Clearly this story will do the rounds. First, on how a leader of a political party was dragged away by the police. Secondly, the avoidance of tax by firms using tax-havens will pass into to the catalogue of fracking horrors, along with earthquakes, poisoned aquifers, health issues, cancer and climate change questions.
However the claims are simply false, as UKOOG tweeted soon afterwards Twitter 10/11/17 pm

ukoogbartley
For more information on tax regulations you can consult the Oil and Gas Authority page and follow the links
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploration-production/taxation/overview/  

Here it goes to hmrc

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/oil-taxation-manual/ot00020
This makes it clear that any taxes due from oil or gas production are made according to the locality of the well i.e. in Britain, rather than whether the operators are based in Britain, Cayman Islands, Russia or Timbuktu. This was brought in to ensure maximum tax revenues from North Sea Oil, by , asit were, taxing the well and not the company..
Here is a section of the HMRC page

The taxation of the UK oil industry: an overview: the current fiscal regime for oil and gas
The fiscal regime which currently applies to oil and gas exploration and extraction from the UK and the UK Continental Shelf consists of three elements.
• Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT). This is a special tax on oil and gas production from the UK and UK Continental Shelf. It is a field based tax charged on profits arising from individual oil fields: It is not charged on the aggregate profits from all oil fields owned by each company. The current rate of PRT is 50%. PRT was abolished in FA93 for all fields given development consent on or after 16 March 1993. (See OT03500).
• Ring Fence Corporation Tax (RFCT) This is the standard corporation tax applicable to all companies (subject to some important modifications e.g. relating to capital allowances) with the addition of a ‘ring fence’. The ring fence prevents taxable profits from oil and gas extraction in the UK and UK Continental Shelf being reduced by losses from other activities (see OT21050) or by excessive interest payments (see OT22005). From the 1 April 2008 the main rate of corporation tax in the ring fence has been fixed at 30%.
• Supplementary Charge (SC) This is an additional charge originally set at 10% on a company’s ring fence profits excluding finance costs. The supplementary charge was introduced from 17 April 2002 (see OT21200). The supplementary charge was increased to 20% for APs beginning on or after 1 January 2006 and 32% from 24 March 2011.

 

note that it says “It is a field based tax charged on profits arising from individual oil fields:”

To put it simply, all gas being produced from Kirby Misperton, Preston New Road or anywhere else will be taxed at the going rate.
It is unbelievable that someone who should be well-informed about all Green issues, including fracking, should come out with such a false claim.
I hope he apologises and publically withdraws his false accusations.

Genesis Chapter One and Geological Time from Ussher to Darwin

 

THE GENESIS OF RAY AND HIS SUCESSORS
or The Fall of the House of Ussher.

Jacobus_ussher

Evangelical Quarterly, Vol LXXIV no 2 p143–65, April 2002 (given as Conference paper for The John Ray Society Conference, Braintree, March 1999.,(also in the proceedings for the conference).

Abstract
Most writers assume that, until geological findings forced them to modify their beliefs in the 19th Century, all Christians believed that the earth was created in 4004 BC as a result of Ussher’s chronological calculations. By considering first John Ray and his contemporary theologians, poets and naturalists, it is clear that few followed Ussher even in the 17th Century. They favoured a Chaos-Restitution interpretation of Genesis One allowing a longer time. Most held this in the 18th Century but after the awareness of vast geological time the duration of Chaos was vastly extended to include all geological time. This preceded the Gap Theory of Chalmers in 1802. Until the 1850s this was the dominant interpretation, when Hugh Miller and Rorison rejected it. After that most conservative Christians rejected it, but it found new life in the Schofield Bible only to be rejected after the rise of Creationism in 1961.

To read the article with references please click on here

Genesis of Ray

Introduction

Dinosaurs have always captivated the younger generation and the recent television series Walking with Dinosaurs has attracted an older audience. In her recent book The Dinosaur Hunters Deborah Cadbury sought to tell the story of their discovery and related the work of Mary Anning, William Buckland, Gideon Mantell and Richard Owen. Her scientific account was good, but she sought to present the Revd William Buckland, as someone who was deeply disturbed that his geology was demonstrating the earth was far older than 6000 years. At Oxford, Buckland was supposedly met with hostility as she wrote, ‘All this made little impression on the canons and bishops at Oxford. Scholars and religious leaders were alarmed that the sacred evidence of the word of God should be muddied with bits of rock and dirt.’ Cadbury had repeated the “old, old story” that in the early 19th Century the discoveries of geology upset the Church and its leaders. However, apart from citing a few of the literalist “anti-geologists”, she provided no hard evidence for this and gave no instance of any canon or bishop who objected to Buckland. Neither can I – except for Nares, the regius professor of history. No mention was made of bishops and canons, such as Bishop Barrington of Durham, and G.S.Faber, an evangelical Prebendary of Durham, who supported Buckland. She even put down his later mental illness to his striving ‘to bridge the ever-widening gulf between religion and geology.’ Cadbury also alleged that ‘during his career, geologists had shown that the earth was not six thousand years old’, whereas the vast age of the earth was known decades before Buckland began geological research in 1810.
Among the educated relatively few in the two centuries before Buckland had actually held to a literal interpretation of Genesis One, insisting on creation in 144 hours. This becomes clear when the interpretation of Genesis by exegetes, theologians and “scientists” from 1650 is considered, beginning with John Ray and his contemporaries in the late 17th century and tracing out interpretations to the eve of the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

John Ray and his contemporaries.

300px-John_Ray_from_NPG

John Ray (1627-1705) was the greatest British naturalist of the seventeenth century and was one of the early members of the Royal Society and has been well served by Charles Raven’s biography , which details his chequered career inside and outside the Church of England. Conformist and non-conformist lay claim to him, as he was ordained deacon and priest on 23 December 1660, and refused to conform in 1662. He spent the rest of his life on the fringes of the Established Church. His botanical and zoological work was prodigious and is often regarded as the British Linnaeus. His many works included the three volumes of Historia Plantarum published between 1686 and 1704. He also considered the nature of species.
Ray also took an interest in Geology. At that time naturalists were beginning to recognise the organic origin of fossils and generally presupposed that all strata were deposited during the Noachian Deluge. Despite their diversity, they had a common outlook; strata were deposited in the Flood, and, as is usually portrayed, believed in a six-day creation because they lived ‘in an uncritical age.’ Whereas there is no question that the Flood was the most important cause of deposition for these Theorists, none believed in a literal six day creation and nor did most of their successors. This is despite Dawkins’ widely held contention that even in the 1860s most of the church accepted ‘the 4004 BC date for the creation then favoured by churchmen.’ With the demise of the conflict thesis of science and theology, no historian of science doubts that by 1820 most Christians accepted geological ages. However it is still assumed that before 1800 most adopted an Ussher chronology. If that were so then it is necessary to explain why in about 1810 Christians should suddenly adopt a non-literal interpretation of Genesis when the churches were moving in a conservative direction due to the rise of Evangelicalism combined with the reaction to the French Revolution . Yet, the leading protagonists of this “new” interpretation were two Evangelicals: Thomas Chalmers and John Sumner. In fact, Chalmers and Sumner were as traditionalist as Evangelicals ought to be! They were only tweaking a traditional theological idea. This idea is the Chaos-Restitution interpretation of Genesis One, which was widely held in the 17th Century as Burnet wrote, ‘so it is understood by the general consent of interpreters, both Hebrew and Christian.’ It was also the theology of John Ray.
John Ray wrote two works of natural theology; The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of Creation and the Three Physico-Theologicial Discourses of which the latter was dedicated to John Tillotson, the Latitudinarian Archbishop. The Three Discourses are built round the standard 17th century themes of Creation, Deluge and the Dissolution of the World, with little reference to the redemptive work of Christ, indicating its Latitudinarian theology. The full sub-title indicates both the theological and scientific concerns of the author:
I. The Primitive CHAOS, and Creation of the World.
II. The General DELUGE, its Causes and Effects.
III. The Dissolution of the WORLD, and Future Conflagration.
WHEREIN
Are largely Discussed the Production and Use of Mountains; The Original of Fountains, of Formed Stones, and Sea-Fishes, Bones and Shells found in the Earth; the Effect of particular Floods and Inundations of the Sea; the Eruptions of Vulcano’s; the Nature and Causes of Earthquakes:
With an Historical Account of those Two late Remarkable Ones in Jamaica and England.
With PRACTICAL INFERENCES.
A superficial reader will simply take this as meaning a Six-day Creation, a geologically efficacious Flood and then a pyrotechnic end of the world within the space of 6,000 years. Mingled in with this are a whole series of geological and biological observations of limited scientific value.
However, a careful reading gives a different picture. Instead of fundamentalist Biblicism there is an intermingling of Biblical narrative, Classical ideas, Renaissance thought and scientific observation. Ray began with the creation of Chaos supported by citations from Hesiod and Ovid. He quoted Lactantius, ‘Hesiod not taking his beginning from God the Creator of all things, but from the Chaos, which is a rude and inordinate heap of confused matter.’ and that ‘Moses in the History and Description of the Creation in the first Chapter of Genesis, saith not that God had created all things in an instant in their full state and perfection, but that he proceeded gradually and in order.’ Only after the end of Chaos did God “create” in Six Days. Like many of his contemporaries, Ray argued in chapter Two ‘That the creation of the World out of a Chaos is not repugnant to the Holy Scripture.’ The section on the Deluge contained some scientific observation and that on the Dissolution of the World even more.
It is not possible to say that Ray confined the creation of the Earth to about 4000 BC, in conformity with Ussher’s chronology. He did not mention the extent of the duration of Chaos and though he seemed to imply that the Six Days were solar days. In his Of the Specifick Differences of Plants in 1674 he concluded, ‘God having finished his works of Creation, that is consummated the number of Species, in six dayes’ , which seems to imply solar days. However he rejected contemporary notions that the earth would last only six millennia from the initial creation. Yet, in dealing with Lhwyd’s suggestion that the earth must be older he was very guarded. After reading the first edition of Ray’s Miscellaneous Discourses concerning the dissolution of the world, Lhwyd wrote to Ray on 30 February 1691, ‘Upon the reading on your discourse of the rains continually washing away and carrying down earth from the mountains, it puts me in mind…which I observed’, and then described what he had observed in Snowdonia. He described innumerable boulders, which had “fallen” into Nant Peris, above Llanberis and Nant Ffrancon. As ‘there are but two or three that have fallen in the memory of any man now living, in the ordinary course of nature we shall be compelled to allow the rest many thousands of years more than the age of the world.’ Lhwyd was reluctant to ascribe them to the Deluge and in the second edition Ray commented on Lhwyd’s findings in a very evasive manner and avoided facing the logic of Lhwyd’s comments. On geological time Ray did not explicitly reject an Ussher chronology. However from his discussion of Chaos and other comments, he probably accepted that the earth was considerably more than five-and-a-half thousand years old, but left the reader to decide.

The photos below are in Nant Peris where Ray and Lhwyd saw the bouldersDSCF9511 (1)DSCF9512 (1)DSCF9513 (1)
Many of Ray’s scientifically inclined colleagues followed a similar pattern of Chaos, Restitution in Six Days, Deluge and the ultimate dissolution of the earth and wrote innumerable Theories of the Earth. These include Boyle, Halley, Burnet, Whiston, Woodward and the unknown Hobbes, rescued from oblivion by Roy Porter. These writers argued far more naturalistically than biblically as Gould argued in respect of Burnet and Whiston. Whiston, a friend of Halley, considered the earth to have begun as a comet at the end of the duration of Chaos and reckoned that the ordering of comet to a planet required more time than a creative week and thus each day of Genesis was a year. This, according to Gould, ‘was a big step in the right direction’. It also sought to explain by secondary causes, rather than invoking the direct hand of God.
These writers refuted each other interminably, but their common ground is belief in the creation of an initial Chaos of undefined duration, followed by a reordering Creation in Six Days, and much later followed by a Deluge. This is what Burnet meant by, ‘so it is understood by the general consent of Interpreters.’ This indicates that this slightly extended timescale for the earth was common parlance in the late 17th century. Burnet’s statement is not only substantiated by fellow “scientists”, including Keill in An Examination of Dr Burnet’s Theory of the Earth (1698) who wrote, ‘That the Earth was formed from a Chaos, must be unquestionably own’d by, who acknowledge the Holy Scripture…’ , but also by many theologians and contemporary poets. Patrick, Willoughby and Lowth published the main Anglican Bible Commentary in 1694. Bishop Patrick described Chaos as ‘a confused, indigested heap, without any order or shape.’(Verse 1) On the reordering of Chaos he wrote of the First Day ‘How long all things continued in mere confusion, after the chaos was created, before this light was extracted out of it, we are not told. It might be … a great while…’ (on verse 5) Patrick gave no clue as to the duration, but his reference ‘by long fermentation’ calls to mind Traherne’s The Salutation, where he wrote;
When silent I,
So many thousand thousand years,
Beneath the dust did in a chaos lie,
Traherne probably wrote this in about 1670 and its resonance with Patrick’s Commentary indicates a common tradition. However the chart in the commentary’s frontispiece on the Chronology of the Patriarchs from Adam to Jacob describes Adam as created in 4004BC. This indicates that most thought that humanity had existed only since then, but the earth was somewhat older. This limited antiquity of Man was unquestioned until the 19th Century. The Dissenting commentator Matthew Poole wrote in a similar vein in 1700 , though his fellow Dissenter Matthew Henry seemed to consider Chaos of limited duration in his commentary of 1708-10, which had the date of 4004 BC in the margin .
As Arnold Williams made clear in the Common Expositor the Chaos-restitution interpretation with the interweaving of Biblical and Classical literature was common during the Renaissance among both Roman and Protestant exegetes. Poets also shared in the Chaos-Restitution most notably Milton in Paradise Lost, although he inclined to a shorter time-scale, Spenser, Thomas Traherne, Dryden and Alexander Pope to name a few .
Archbishop Ussher stands in contrast to all of these, except Matthew Henry. His Chaos lasted only twelve hours, so that the Six Days began with the creation of Chaos, rather than the re-ordering of it. Further he considered that the duration of the earth was to be Six Millennia corresponding to the Six Creative Days, and it is that, and not calculations from biblical chronologies that gave the date 4004 BC for creation. The extra four years came from his sound historical argument that Herod had died by 4 BC. In historical retrospect Ussher has acquired a significance he did not have in the 17th Century. The 4004 BC date seems to have first appeared in the margins of Bibles in 1701 in editions published by the Clarendon Press under the direction of Archbishop Tenison and the Bishop of Worcester. This practice continued well into last century, and even Darwin thought it part of Holy Writ.
The general consensus of scientists, theologians and poets, was that Chaos was created first and then re-ordered in Six Days. Man was created in about 4000 B. C. and that opinion persisted well into the 19th Century, even when most accepted that the earth was millions of years old. Just how old the Earth is alluded to so imprecisely, except by Whiston, that their estimate on the age of the earth cannot even be guessed at. Traherne’s ‘thousand thousand’ is probably poetic licence (like Burgon’s ‘half as old as time’ for the age of Petra). Whether Patrick’s ‘long Fermentation’ was a few years or a few millennia is not clear. Going beyond the evidence and tentatively arguing retrospectively from the extension of the Chaos-Restitution theory a century later to incorporate all geology I am inclined to suggest tens of millennia.
The Chaos-Restitution was no new concept and had roots in both earlier biblical commentators and poets, both in the Renaissance and the Early Fathers. As Williams wrote, ‘The commentators thus provide considerable support for the poetic descriptions of chaos which abound in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century literature. Dubartas, Spenser, Phineas Fletcher, Milton, … Beaumont, all sing the original state of the universe, rude and unformed…’ Poetic descriptions of the chaos are common throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in the writings of Pope, Blake Byron, and the forgotten Erasmus Darwin.
The most important conclusion is that in the period 1660 to 1700 most educated Christians thought and argued that the “events” of Genesis One took place in a time period longer than 144 hours. They did not hold to a literal Six-Day Creation. The majority held that the Six Days work was a final re-ordering of a much older previously created Chaos. However Man remained a recent creation.

The Eighteenth Century

The Eighteenth Century was more of the same on the interpretation of Genesis. Though there was much geological work the significant breakthroughs took place at the end of the century with the awareness of the vast antiquity of the earth coming as a result of the work of de Saussure, Hutton, Smith, de Brogniart and Cuvier among others, in a Europe-wide development.
The dissemination of the slightly extended timescale of the Theorists of the Earth is evidenced by Buffon’s discussion of Whiston, Burnet and Woodward in the first volume of his Natural History, as well as those of Liebnitz and Scheutzer. He had little time for the Theories of the Earth and said, ‘I reject these vain speculations.’ However Buffon was vague about the age of the earth, presumably out of deference to the Sorbonne theologians, who even in 1850 were still propounding a six-day creation. Buffon (1707-1788) also carried out experiments on the cooling of red-hot globes of iron and then applied his findings to the cooling of a globe the size of the earth and estimated that the age of the earth must be in the order of 75,000 years. If this is contrasted to notions that the earth was only created in 4000 BC, then this is a radical age and was liable to offend the “theologians”. However it was not drastically different to suggestions made by British writers in the previous century and simply gave some experimental data to support them.
If Buffon is a forerunner of Darwin, Erasmus Darwin is doubly so. In his Preliminary Notice to Kraus’s Erasmus Darwin, Charles wrote, ‘he fully believed in God as Creator of the universe.’ Erasmus’s fin de siecle works on evolution were written in verse and in The Botanic Garden, reflect current understandings of Creation and Chaos,
‘—- Let there be light!’ proclaimed the Almighty Lord.
Astonished Chaos heard the potent word:-
Through all his realms the kindling Ether runs,
And the mass starts into a million suns;’
Charles wrote that Horace Walpole admired Darwin’s poetry as ‘sublime’. Perhaps not sublime, but these verses show the prevalence of the understanding of Creation and Chaos at the end of the 18th century. The immediate source of Darwin’s Chaos may be John Whitehurst the geologist . Darwin repeated his reference to Chaos in The Temple of Nature of 1802.
Taking a very different attitude to science were Hutchinson and his disciple Catcott. In 1748 Hutchinson wrote Moses’ Principia to oppose Newton. Both lay great store on Genesis and attempt to correct the “errors” of Newton and other 17th Century scientists. Many of the themes of Genesis One are similar to those in the Theorists but far less is made of the Chaos and Hutchinson seems not to hold that the period of chaos or tohu va bohu was of any significant duration. Some years later his disciple Catcott wrote his Treatise on the Deluge (1768). Catcott did discuss Chaos briefly but again there is no suggestion of anything but a short duration. The Hutchinsonian ideas were held by some until the early 19th century and the last Hutchinsonian scientist seems to have been William Kirkby, who argued for a Six-Day creation in his Bridgewater Treatise.
More amenable to longer ages was the Welsh Evangelical hymnwriter William Williams or Pantycelyn (1717- 1791), who was perhaps the best theologian of the Welsh Revival. He originally studied medicine, made deacon in 1740, but was never priested. He wrote prolifically in Welsh, and translations are rare. In 1756 he wrote Golwg ar Deyrnas Crist (A View of Christ’s Kingdom) which is an epic poem answering the Deists. Pantycelyn’s understanding of creation is discussed by Derec Llwyd Morgan, who contrasts him to John Owen, who affirmed Creation in one line, ‘From nothing was created all ‘neath the glorious skies’. Pantycelyn is anything but brief. In Notes at the end of the work he gives a long summary of the contemporary state of science, mostly based on Derham’s Astro-theology and Physico-theology indicating his scientific competence. Chapter II of his epic poem is a long poetic account of Creation amplifying Genesis One. Llwyd Morgan points out that ‘Williams, perhaps taking his cue from Milton, … Maintains that the ordered creation was fashioned out of chaos, but that God was also the Creator “Of Chaos vast and all its turbulence”.’ Williams maintains there were two creations: the creation of the basic materials and the creation of the universe with those materials, all of which God accomplished ‘in one hundred and forty four hours’, as it is in Genesis. Though the Recreation took 144 hours, Pantycelyn gives no indication how long Chaos had existed.
Remaining in Wales we turn to the anti-Evangelical Bishop Samuel Horsley (1734-1807) of St Asaph, a conservative old High Churchman . He had little sympathy for the Evangelicals, and must take some of the discredit for many “Calvinistic Methodists” leaving the Anglican Church . Horsley, who had considerable mathematical ability, held to a semi-literalistic stance, holding that there were neither sun nor stars until day four and that the earth was not a lump of the sun and four days older. These were first published the British Critic in 1802 in response to Geddes’ biblical Criticism, where Horsley argued that God created Chaos first and later re-ordered the Creation in the Six Days. As Horsley expressed it ‘The interval between the production of the matter of the chaos, and the formation of light (i.e. the first day) is undescribed and unknown.’ Haydn’s Creation contains similar ideas, with the orchestral introduction on The Chaos and the aria ‘And a new created world sprung up at God’s command’. Horsley is cited by the geologist Edward Hitchcock in answer to the biblical literalists of the 1830s and 1840s .
Following suit was Charles Simeon in Horae Homileticae and wrote (possibly long before 1832), ‘Five days had been occupied in reducing to order the confused chaos…. On the sixth, God formed man…’. Like Isaac Watts in his Scriptural History, which was one of Darwin’s school textbooks, and almost quoting him, he continued, ‘It is not for us to inquire why God chose this space of time for the completion of his work, when he could as easily have formed it all in an instant’. Watts omitted any reference to Chaos and wrote ‘God, who could have made all Things at once…’ Simeon made no reference to geology but was not convinced of geology in the 1820s. Carus reported that Simeon said, ‘Geologists take too much upon them…It is the fashion to ridicule Mr Bugg’s book: but it is much easier to ridicule than to answer many of its facts…. Faber’s idea of each day of creation being a 1000 years seems a little better than nonsense.’ Taking both together creates a problem as in Horae Homileticae Simeon supports Chaos then Creation, and, if Abner Brown and Carus were right, also supported the Anti-geologists. But then in the 1820s geology was still a young science, and non-acceptance of geology should not be seen as “fundamentalist” hostility.
This wide cross-section of Anglican clerics is chosen because most had some skills scientifically. Many more examples could be given . They reflect the dominant understanding of Genesis, which as argued above goes back beyond the Theories of the Earth to the commentaries and poetry of the Renaissance. Whether Evangelical or reactionary High Church they adopted the “non-literalism” of Chaos-Restitution.
Many poets incorporated Chaos when versifying on Creation or related matters. The ubiquity of Chaos is evidenced by Phillis Wheatley’s Thoughts on the Works of Providence;
That called creation from eternal night.
‘Let there be light,’ He said: and from his profound
Old Chaos heard
Wheatley was a slave born in Africa who was purchased by John Wheatley of Boston and also wrote a poem on the death of George Whitfield. In a letter to Samson Occom, a Mohegan Presbyterian minister in 1774, she wrote:
‘The divine Light is chasing away the thick darkness which broods over the Land of Africa; and the Chaos which has reign’d so long, is converting into beautiful Order.’
The Wheatleys, slave-owners and slave, moved in Evangelical circles and are more properly considered in respect of abolitionism, but this sheds light on the whole concept of Chaos. Sadly Phillis died in poverty at the age of 31 in 1784, after the death of the Wheatleys.
And so from an unknown slave-girl we move to a leading composer. Haydn’s Creation expresses the variety and ambiguity of the 18th century interpretation of the Creation Story in musical form, though it apparently gives a musical rendering of Genesis Chapter One in a literalistic manner. A closer examination belies this and indicates that the libretto allows a measure of “ruin-and-restitution” and has probable close links with contemporary sciences, especially the Nebular Hypothesis of Laplace. The Creation was one of Haydn’s last works and he began composing the score in 1796 after visiting London in 1791-2 and 1793-4. In 1795 Salomon gave the original English text of The Creation to Haydn. Gottfried van Swieten, who translated the text into German wrote about its origins in 1798; ‘Neither is it by Dryden, but by an unnamed author who had compiled it largely from Milton’s Paradise Lost and had intended it for Handel…’. The author is not known, but many have assumed that it was Thomas Linley (1733-95). However, it dates from about 1750, and is thus evidence for mid-century understandings of Genesis One. It closely follows Milton and other poets, as well as many exegetes, as described above. Consideration of the Aria with Chorus, ‘Now vanish before the holy beams’ indicates that the librettist follows a form of “ruin-and-restoration” with a destruction of gloomy chaos by the Light. The aria moves from Chaos to a new creation:
‘Now vanish before the holy beams / The gloomy shades of ancient days’
and
‘Affrighted fly hell’s spirits black in throng; / Down they sink in the deep abyss / To endless night’)
and
‘Despairing rage attends their rapid fall’
and the formation of ‘a new-created world’ which ‘springs up at God’s command.’ The libretto for the first Day points to the first Act of Creation being the Chaos “without form and void” and then after an unspecified time was recreated or reconstituted in Six Days. Thus from the chronological sense of the libretto the orchestral Representation of Chaos should between Raphael’s first recitative and the first chorus, though not on musical grounds! Further, the libretto for Day One precludes the possibility of taking the Chaos as the pre-existing material which God moulded into shape over six days
However in the 18th Century there were relatively few “literalists”. These were mostly from the more biblicist wing of the Evangelical Revival and included the Baptist Andrew Fuller and the poets William Cowper, who valued Erasmus Darwin’s poetry, and James Montgomery. However John Wesley concurred with the majority.
To focus on these literalists, or the literalists noises made by Horsley, obscures the fact that the majority of Christian writers had accepted an “elastic” Genesis long before the abyss of time opened up at the end of the 18th century by geologists throughout Europe. Their diverse understandings of geology are not relevant, as the issue is the vastness of time demonstrated by their geology. There were clearly implications for Christian theology and Christians needed some “scheme of reconciliation”.
One was that adopted by the “naturaliste et voyager genevois” Deluc or de Luc, who regarded the days of Genesis as representing very long periods of time. He wrote his Treatise on Geology 1809 and his Letters to Blumenbach were published in the British Critic in the 1790s, He allowed a Day to be a few thousand years and thus limited the age of the earth to some tens of thousands. It was probably due to this relatively limited age that Edward Nares, Thomas Arnold’s predecessor as Professor of History at Oxford, was able to accept geological finding in his Bampton Lectures of 1805. Yet three decades later he rejected the findings of geology as undemonstrable and infidel, as it became clear that geologists were demanding many millions of years . This “Day-Age” interpretation, as it came to be called, was a significant but minority understanding by Christians until the mid-nineteenth century.

Chalmers, Sumner and the Gap Theory

By the beginning of the 19th Century the majority of Christian or nominally Christian, writers had modified the consensus of the Theorists. The sequence based on Genesis One to Eleven of Chaos, re-ordering Creation with man being created in about 4000BC and then the Deluge evolved into a vastly extended Chaos, which encompassed a multiplicity of Deluges. One might say that the theologians quietly slipped geology into the Chaos. The first theologian who is known to have done this was Thomas Chalmers at St Andrews in the winter of 1802 . At this time Chalmers was a Moderate and a colleague of Playfair. He had become an Evangelical by1811 and despite his far more biblicist theology his understanding of geology and Genesis remained unchanged. Many writers, notably Henri Blocher and Weston Fields credit Chalmers with a novel interpretation. Blocher wrote positively that Chalmers ‘was seeking to reconcile Genesis with the new discoveries about the age of the earth’ , but Fields reckoned that ‘Chalmers deemed it necessary to harmonise the Scriptures and science in order to save Christianity from the onslaught of atheism!’ Several years earlier, the Irish chemist and opponent of James Hutton, Richard Kirwan wrote vehemently against such an interpretation and wrote, ‘the earth at the time of its creation was without form, &c. therefore another terraqueous did not previously exist in a complete state out of the ruins of which the present earth was formed, as some have lately imagined;’ . Kirwan wrote this before June 1798 and implied this was a widely held opinion, thus pointing to its existence some years previously.
South of the border Joseph Townsend (1739-1816) published The Character of Moses Established for Veracity as a Historian, Recording events from the Creation to the Deluge in 1812. Its apologetic tone is apparent from its title and is a cautious acceptance of geology by an Evangelical who was a colleague of the Countess of Huntingdon in his earlier years. Townsend was instrumental in disseminating William Smith’s geological ideas at the turn of the century while he was living in Bath. His work gave a survey of contemporary geology and followed the Chaos-restitution interpretation, though tending to have a fairly limited view of the earth’s antiquity. Townsend seemed reluctant to accept millions of years for the age of the earth, but even so his “middle-aged” earth is a far cry from a few thousand years.
A few years later in 1816 the future Archbishop of Canterbury, John Bird Sumner (1780-1862) published A Treatise on the Records of Creation. Much of this was related to political economy but part of the appendix was on the relationship of Christianity and Geology, following the chaos-restitution interpretation.
Chalmers and Sumner were largely responsible for forging a new geologico-theological consensus by modifying older interpretations, though there have been no detailed studies of their work. Both, and especially Chalmers, are often regarded as making a radical change. Hugh Miller in The Testimony of the Rocks credited Chalmers with an original interpretation, whereas Chalmers did no more than popularise a modification of a traditional view, which was already widely held. This is not to denigrate Chalmers and Sumner, but puts their work in perspective.
Most Anglicans and Presbyterians accepted this reconciliation of Genesis and geology in the 1810s and 1820s. On the Anglican front this is clearly seen by an extended study of their journals, notably the Christian Observer, the British Critic and the Quarterly Review. Their attitude may be summed up as positive to ambivalent to geology and apart from the first none contain no hostility to geology.
As well as being the most common interpretation by theologians and popular religious writers, the Gap Theory was widely adopted by clerical geologists. The most widely read work was Conybeare and Phillips’ Outline of the Geology of England and Wales (1822). The introductory chapter, presumably by Conybeare (1787-1857), later Dean of Llandaff, contains a long section on the theological implications of geology. In the late 1820s he was advising S.C.Wilks, the editor of the Christian Observer, who was trying to head off evangelical anti-geologists. Conybeare wrote that ‘Two only points can be in any manner implicated in the discussions of Geology.
I. The Noachian Deluge
II. The Antiquity of the Earth.’
As a Diluvialist the former was no problem to Conybeare. On the latter, Conybeare followed Sumner. Human antiquity was the Six Thousand Years indicated by a strict reading of the Bible – something which was not questioned for a decade. He gave three hypotheses ‘With regard to the time requisite for the formation of the secondary strata’. The first is a literal six days which he does not expressly exclude, the second the Long Day, which was forcibly expounded by the evangelical G.S.Faber (1773-1854), and the third Chaos-Restitution. Conybeare avoided recommending any of the three, but his preference is implicit in a long footnote citing Sumner on the Records of Creation. (lxi) Ecclesiastically Conybeare was an orthodox Anglican, with evangelical leanings. Conybeare and Phillips was the main geological text in the 1820s; Darwin owned a copy, which he took on the Beagle, as did Samuel Wilberforce. .

buckland

 
William Buckland (1784-1856) devoted part of his Inaugural Lecture Vindiciae Geologicae at Oxford in 1819 to the relationship of geology and “the Mosaic Records”, adopting the Chaos-Restitution hypothesis citing Sumner, Horsely and Buffon for support. Buckland returned to this in his Bridgewater Treatise where the second chapter considered the Consistency of Geological discoveries with sacred History. That chapter offended anti-geologists for its espousal of an ancient earth, and thus Buckland’s Bridgewater was followed by a spate of anti-geologies condemning “infidel” geology in the late 1830s. Buckland rejected any notion of ‘a detailed account of geological phenomena in the bible’. To put it briefly, Buckland roundly rejected any idea that all strata were laid down in the Flood and had reservations over a “Long Day”. He returned to his inaugural lecture where he claimed, ‘the word ‘beginning’ as applied to Moses … to express an undefined period of time, which was antecedent to the last great change…’ (p19). To support his case Buckland referred to Chalmers, Pusey, Burton, Horsely, Sumner and others. He also cited Adam Sedgwick’s (1785- 1873) Discourse on the Studies at the University of Cambridge and the long discussion on geology in the Christian Observer in 1834.
A survey of contemporary theological writings show that this was the most widespread “reconciliation” of geology and Genesis in the period 1810 to 1850 and that the biblically literalist Anti-geologies, such as Cockburn, Fairholme, Fitzroy and others were minority concerns despite the noise they made.
It is easy to regard the Chaos-Restitution interpretation of Genesis as special pleading and a forced exegesis. However even such a commentator as S.R.Driver in 1902 still contains echoes of it as did more recently Claus Westermann . By the end of the 19th century it was been given a Dispensationalist twist as the “Gap Theory” and was enshrined in the Schofield Reference Bible. This allowed the early “Fundamentalists” to accept geological science, if not evolution. However following the rise of Creationism after 1961, the Gap Theory has now been almost completely discarded . From a later vantagepoint, whether the late 19th or even early 21st century, it is difficult to conceive that this interpretation MADE SENSE AT THE TIME whether for theological or scientific reasons. It was considered to be a careful well-thought theological understanding and biblical interpretation, which both took earlier understandings into account (Tradition) and modern understandings of science especially Geology (Reason). Thus, ignoring the Kirk for a moment, it epitomised the classic intellectual Anglican approach of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, which found expression in Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. It is probably due to its Godly rationalism that it was not accepted by the more extreme and often dissenting Evangelicals, who accepted Scripture in an extreme sola Scriptura sense as opposed to Tradition and Reason.

The Slow Demise of the Chaos-Restitution Theory
The Chaos-Restitution Theory was the most widely held reconciliation of Genesis and geology until mid-century. Hugh Miller (1802-1856) questioned it in a footnote in Footprints of the Creator , his anti-evolutionary critique of the Vestiges in 1847. This he expanded in his posthumous The Testimony of the Rocks (1858), both in the Preface and in two chapters on Genesis and geology. He explained why he felt it necessary to reject Chalmers’ Gap Theory, which had been widely held for 50 years in favour of his concept of The Mosaic Vision of Creation. In the preface, Miller spelled out the geological reasoning behind this change. He wrote, ‘I certainly did once believe with Chalmers and with Buckland that the six days were simply natural days of twenty-four hours each … and that the latest of the geologic ages were separated by a great chaotic gap from our own.’ This was reasonable to Catastrophists, who reckoned that each geological era was closed off by a catastrophe. Miller explained that this was no problem with ‘the Palaeozoic and Secondary rocks’, but was with recent strata. He continued, ‘During the last nine years (written in c1856), however I have spent a few weeks every autumn in exploring the later formations.’ From his study of the Pleistocene, he concluded that many of our ‘humbler contemporaries’ especially molluscs existed long before man. Thus ‘No blank chaotic gap of death and darkness separated the creation from which man belongs from that of the old extinct elephant … and hyaena, or for familiar animals … lived throughout the period which connected their times with our own.’ As a result Miller rejected the whole idea of Chaos then Restitution and adopted the view of six prophetic days of creation. Chalmers’ ideas were more congenial to a Catastrophist than to a Uniformitarian geology, with its seamless geological development throughout time. Within a few decades became Miller’s ideas became the commonest understanding of Genesis by conservative Christians.
An early example was Dean Francis Close (1797-1882) who gave a lecture for the YMCA in 1858 and made extensive use of both Miller. Close was a leading Evangelical and the Pope of Cheltenham. Despite his rigorous Evangelicalism, he took a very “liberal” view on Genesis. In the 1820s while at Cheltenham, he preached on early Genesis, but took Genesis very literally and mentioned neither Chaos nor geology . Within thirty years he moved from literalism to a scientifically informed non-literalism.
Close was criticised from a most unlikely source for being too free and easy with Holy Writ, as his friend Sedgwick wrote a long letter discussing the shortcomings of Miller. Sedgwick had long rejected Chalmers’ views on Genesis in that he regarded the Days as indefinite periods. His biography by Clark and Hughes sheds little light beyond his non-literalism and the most detailed comment is his letter to Close. Sedgwick thought Miller might do some harm as his over-schematic approach was geologically wrong, and concluded ‘Hugh Miller was a man of great natural genius, +in some parts of geology, admirably well informed, but it is not always safe to follow him, when he travels beyond his own beat – His “Testimony of the Rocks” is in its way a noble work – it may do much good, but it may do some harm – for when men connect certain difficult passages of the bible with any scheme of interpretation which has gained their confidence, they are almost certain to look with suspicion, + ill will, on any man, who does not accept this interpretation + to suspect them of infidelity –.’
‘I make no difficulty in the words Morning + Evening, they are only I think meant to mark the beginning + end of periods or days, – the Mosaic day is assuredly not 24 hours, + if we once admit a prophetic extended meaning of day, our souls are then free, + we are permitted to give any indefinite period, + the word day.’
‘I do not like the scheme of stretching the Bible, like an elastic band, till we can wrap up our hypotheses in its sacred leaves.’
This letter is of great significance as the leading Evangelical geologist wrote it to another Evangelical. Both had a high view of scripture and both were more than convinced by geological findings. Both took Genesis “non-literally” yet Sedgwick, cautious as usual, was reluctant ‘of stretching the Bible, like an elastic band’ and preferred to wait as this ‘will end in harmony, + true accordance with the word of God’. Undoubtedly Darwin and Goodwin in Essays and Reviews would dismiss this stance as both had a mythological view of Genesis, but it demonstrates the shift away from the “Chaos-Restitution” interpretation.
Within a few years Gilbert Rorison was arguing for a totally pictorial exegesis of Genesis in Wilberforce’s Answers to Essays and Reviews and the Chaos-Restitution interpretation rapidly went out of fashion. Archdeacon Josiah Pratt of Calcutta was one of the last serious writers to expound it. After that it was taken up by nascent Fundamentalists in the late 19th century, and was enshrined in the Schofield Reference Bible, while the Day-Age interpretation gained ground among the more “intellectual” conservatives, most notably by J.W.Dawson .

Conclusion
To understand and empathise with the long story of the interaction of geology and Genesis from the 17th century until today requires some imagination and ability to transport oneself back in time as the whole storyline is frequently lost in the tendency to polarise interpretations of Genesis into either literal or mythical. This does not permit a fine-grained understanding and seduces one into overlooking the acceptance of vast tracts of time behind a claim to take Genesis literally. As a result it is all too easily assumed that all Christians took Genesis literally, with Creation in c4004 BC. This fails to see both the continuity from Ray and his contemporaries to the late 19th century coupled with the constant interaction of “Genesis” and “Geology” throughout these long centuries. This continuity from the 17th Century shows that the exegesis of Genesis adopted in the early 19th Century was not a last ditch defence against the rising tide of science, but a conservative development of an older exegesis. However few doubted that man had been formed some six thousand years ago until the 1840s.
It cannot be stressed strongly enough that there was undoubtedly a vast difference between the beliefs of educated and uneducated Christians. The majority of the latter probably simply accepted creation in 4004 BC, though this may do them a disservice. The case of Phillis Wheatley should warn against too easy an ascription of “literalism” to the mass of Christians. The table in Figure 1 attempts to contrast the received perception of Christian understanding of Genesis and time and my revisionist proposal.
A historical view of science and religion which reckons accept that a “literal Genesis” was the norm in the Western world will give a distorted understanding of both the Theories of the Earth and the early development of Geology in the 1790s when considered in a religious context. Instead of a revolutionary change from Literalism to Liberalism , there was an evolutionary change from the commentators of the Renaissance, through the Theorists, the development of the “Gap Theory” by Chalmers and his unknown predecessors, its rejection by Hugh Miller so that there was scarcely a literalist when Darwin published in 1859. This has particular relevance to the problems of Victorian religious doubt. Two recent writers who re-iterate the received version that literalism was the norm are A.N.Wilson and Paul Badham , both of whom have a polemical purpose.
The limitation of this paper is that only one aspect of the relationship of the implications of the vast age of the earth and the Christian Faith has been considered, that of Genesis One and Geological Time. I make no apology for that.
There are several other issues of great importance, the first is the relationship of sin, suffering and death as portrayed in the Bible and Christian theology in relation to the changing understandings of geology and biology, and the second is the relationship of Anthropological Time in relationship to Genesis and Theology. Both have been largely ignored, and a strong view of the Fall is one of the attractions of creationism to Evangelicals today. A historical study of the Fall from 1600 to 1860 is necessary here, as by no means all theologians of this period groaned under the burden of a Miltonic Fall. The influence of Noah’s Flood in the history of geology has been given a comprehensive treatment by Davis Young in The Biblical Flood.
I rest my case, as Richard Dawkins would, on the evidence.

Michael.B.Roberts,

Acknowledgements.
It is difficult to acknowledge all who have helped me, but particular mention must be made of Stella Brecknell at the Oxford Museum for giving me free access to Buckland papers and other material. The letter from Sedgwick to Close is quoted by permission of Dean Close School. I have benefited from discussions with David Livingstone, Paul Marston, Jim Moore, Jim Secord, Hugh Torrens, and John Wolffe among others, none of whom are responsible for what I write. I also acknowledge grants from the Church in Wales. This paper was presented to the John Ray Society Conference at Braintree in March 1999.Genesis of Ray

 

GFGFHGFH

D. Cadbury, The Dinosaur Hunters (London, 2000), 21.
D. Cadbury, The Dinosaur Hunters (London, 2000), 284.
M.B. Roberts, ‘Geology and Genesis Unearthed’, Churchman 112 (1998), 225 –255.
C.E. Raven, John Ray, Naturalist, (Cambridge, 1942, 1986 2nd ed).
A.J. Cain., ‘Thomas Sydenham, John Ray, and some contemporaries on species’, Archives of Natural History 26 (1999), 55-83.
From the Memorial to Edward Lhwyd in Jesus College, Oxford erected in 1905 at the height of the warfare of science and religion era.
D. McFarland (ed), The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour, (Oxford, 1981), 155.
R. Porter, Enlightenment Britain and the creation of the modern world, (Harmondsworth, 2000) p467-70.
M.B. Roberts, Geology and Genesis Unearthed, Churchman, 112, (1998), 225 –255.
Thomas Burnet, The Sacred Theory of the Earth,(London, 1681), Chapter IV, p30.
J. Ray, The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of Creation, (London, 1691).
J. Ray, Three Physico-Theologicial Discourses, (London, 1693), 3.
J. Ray, Three Physico-Theologicial Discourses, (London, 1693), 5.
Cited in ref 2 p83.
E. Lhwyd to John Ray (30 February 1691), cited in Ray op.cit 12, 285.
J. Ray, op. cit. ref 7, 285-289. These and other valleys are littered with rocks, most of which are erratics deposited by glaciers. In Nant Peris there are many thousands, and if, according to Lhwyd, one fell every twenty five years that would make the earth over 100,000 years old.
S.J. Gould, Ever since Darwin, (Harmondsworth, 1980), 141-146, Bully for Brontosaurus, (Harmondsworth, 1991), 368-381.
W. Whiston, A new theory of the earth, (London, 1696), 1 – 69, especially 51.
J. Keill, An Examination of Dr Burnet’s Theory of the Earth, (Oxford, 1698), 29-39.
Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, Whitby and Lowman, Critical Commentary and Paraphrase of the Old and New Testament and the Apocrypha, (London, 1764 -1st edit 1694), vol I, 1 –3.
T. Traherne, Selected poems and prose, (Harmondsworth, 1991), 3.
Poole, like Bishop Stillingfleet, accepted that the Deluge was local rather than universal, and would presumably agree theologically with Ballard’s search for the Ark in the Black Sea!
The inclusion of the date 4004 B.C. in many commentaries may well indicate the age of humanity and not the age of the earth.
A. Williams, The Common Expositor, (Chapel Hill, 1948).
S. Spenser, Poetical Works, (Oxford, 1912), 545, (Colin Clouts come home again, lines 847 –860.)
J.Dryden, A Song for St Cecilia’s Day,1687.
A. Pope, Dunciad Variorum, book 1, line10, Windsor Forest, lines 12-15.
This section is over-brief and only hints at the way in which poets use Chaos.
Williams, ref 24, 49.
Blake’s The Book of Urizen has roots in Genesis and ideas of Chaos, see P. Ackroyd, Blake, (London, 1995), 170ff.
G. Gohau, Les sciences de la Terre aux XVII et XVIII siecles, (Paris, 1990), 237-315.
D. Dean, James Hutton and the history of geology, (Cornell University Press, 1992).
Buffon, Natural History (trans by Wm Smellie),(London, 1781, ed of 1812), vol 1, 35
Maupied, Dieu, l’homme et le monde connus par le trois premiers chapitres de la Genese, (Paris, 1851).
P. Barrett &R. Freeman (eds), Works of Charles Darwin, (New York, 1989) vol 29, 41.
D. King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin, (London, 1999), 346-9.
J. Hutchinson, Moses’ Principia, (London, 1749), 4-5.
A Catcott, A Treatise on the Deluge, (London, 1768), 51-54.
W. Williams, Golwg ar Deymas Crist (1764, Translated as A View of Christ’s Kingdom trans R.Jones (London 1878), 231-44.
D. Llwyd Morgan, The Great Awakening in Wales, (London, 1988), 224-5.
Horsley was not above nepotism as he appointed his son to the parish of Chirk, which was my previous living. Some years later he fled to Scotland leaving large debts.
F. Mather, High Church Prophet, (Oxford, 1992).
S. Horsley, British Critic, xix, (1802), 6ff.
E. Hitchcock, The Religion of Geology, (Glasgow and London, n.d.), 51.
C. Simeon, Horae Homileticae, (London, 1832), 2.
I. Watts, A short view of the whole Scripture History, (London, 1781), 4.
A. Brown, Recollections of the Conversation Parties of Rev Charles Simeon, (London, 1863), 325.
I have studied a very large number of commentators and theologians of the 18th century and found that the vast majority of all denominations adopted “chaos-restitution”. Many were vague about the duration of the Chaos. Those who held to a strict Six Days were very rare, and those who allowed the Genesis Days to be “long” were almost as rare.
The Norton Anthology of American Literature, (New York, 1994), 819.
Norton Anthology, 826.
Cited in N. Timperley, Haydn: The Creation, (Cambridge, 1991), 19.
G. Gohau, Les Sciences de la Terre, (Paris, 1990), 237ff.
E. Nares, Man as known to us theologically and geologically,(London, 1834), 22.
There is no detailed study of either Chalmers’ Gap Theory or subsequent developments. My suspicion is that others anticipated Chalmers and the documentary evidence is somewhere in Scotland. See Hanna, W., Memoirs of the life and writings of Thomas Chalmers, (Edinburgh, 1852), vol 1, 79-80.
H. Blocher, In the Beginning, (Leicester, 1984), 41.
W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, (Nutley, N.J.), 1976, 40.
R. Kirwan, Geological Essays, (London, 1799), 47.
J. B. Sumner, A Treatise on the Records of Creation, (London, 1816), Vol II, Appendix, No 1, 339-359.
Roberts, op cit., 234-236, 243-244.
W.D.Conybeare. & W. Phillips, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, (London, 1822), lvi.
G. Faber, A Treatise of the Three Dispensations (London, 1823), 111-65.
Wilberforce’s copy is owned by Prof D.R. Oldroyd of Sydney.
W. Buckland, Vindiciae Geologica, (Oxford, 1820), 25-28.
W. Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy, Considered with reference to Natural Theology, (London, 1836).
Roberts, op cit, 247-250.
S. Driver,The Book of Genesis, (London, 1904), 4.
C. Westermann, Genesis 1 –11: a Commentary, (London, 1984), 104f.
See Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, (New Jersey, 1976).
H. Miller, Footprints of the Creator, (1881, 1st edn 1847), 332.
H. Miller, The Testimony of the Rocks, (Edinburgh, 1858), x – xi.
F.J. Close, “Hugh Miller’s “Testimony of the Rocks” – God in his Word and in his works”, in Lectures delivered before the YMCA, Nov 1857 to Feb 1858, (London, 1859), 239 –272.
F. Close, The Book of Genesis considered and illustrated (London 1826, 6th edn 1841).
Adam Sedgwick to Dean F. Close, 27 March 1857, hand-written copy in archives of Dean Close School, Cheltenham.
G. Rorison, Replies to Essays and Reviews (ed S.Wilberforce) (London, 1861), 281-6.
J. Pratt, Scripture and Science not at variance, (London, 1871).
J. Dawson, the Origin of the World according to revelation and Science, (London, 1880)
Note that literalism and liberalism are used in their incorrect popular usage.
A.N.Wilson, God’s Funeral, (London, 1999). Badham, P, The contemporary challenge of Modernist theology, (Cardiff, 1998).
M.B. Roberts, “The History of the Fall” given at the Christians in Science Conference in September 1990.
D. Young, The Biblical Flood, (Exeter, 1994).

 

Glyphosate and the Regulatory Failure of Precaution

Why Green NGOs amke anything sound scarey . Here it is the weedkiller Glyphosphate.

I need to buy some more………….

(actually I use it very sparingly)

The Risk-Monger

The European regulatory use of the precautionary principle has proven to be a failure. It has failed to deliver good governance to Europeans and serves as an indication how the Commission’s promise of Better Regulation has been a house built on sand. Why has the EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF) been unable to renew the glyphosate authorisation? It comes down to the absurd European hazard-based precautionary regulatory mindset.

The Glyphosate Slugfest

I sometimes wonder if there are people on this planet who have not heard about glyphosate. But every day I also wonder how so many vulnerable souls have been so misled to believe the bullshit being spread about this beneficial, low toxicity herbicide. The public outrage has been so high that even after the Portier Papers exposed the greed, lies and self-interest in those attacking glyphosate, even after Reuters showed how IARC juiced the…

View original post 2,785 more words