Geologist H.H. Read prefaced his book on the granite controversy a few decades ago with these words, “Geology, as the science of earth history, is prone to controversy. The study of history of any kind depends upon documents and records. For the history of the earth’s crust, these documents are the rocks and their reading and interpretation are often difficult operations.”1

This book analyzes one such controversy, and an extremely important one at that, during the first half of the 19th century in Britain, which has sometimes been called the “Genesis-geology debate.” At that time a tenacious and denominationally eclectic band of scientists and clergymen (and some were both) opposed the new geological theories being developed at the time, which said that the earth was millions of years old. These men became known as “scriptural geologists,” “Mosaic geologists,” or “biblical literalists.”

The label “scriptural geologists” is preferred since three of their book titles used these terms and it was the most common label used by their contemporaries and by later historians. However, we need to be aware of the label’s liabilities. It has not always been used carefully, resulting in confusion and inaccurate analysis. Calling them scriptural geologists obscures the fact that some of them were competent geologists while others were not (and did not claim to be). Conversely, it sometimes is and was used by opponents to imply, erroneously, that these men all developed their objections to old-earth geological theories solely on the basis of Scripture. Also, at least one of their contemporary critics, an old-earth geologist, also described himself by the same title.2 Finally, a few of their contemporary critics and several later historians have lumped scriptural geologists together with their opponents under this label.3 So it is necessary to have a clear view of what they believed.

The scriptural geologists held to the dominant Christian view within church history up to their own time, namely, that Moses wrote Genesis 1–11 (along with the rest of Genesis) under divine inspiration and that these chapters ought to be interpreted literally as a reliable, fully historical account.4 This conviction led them to believe, like many contemporary and earlier Christians, that the Noachian flood was a unique global catastrophe, which produced much, or most, of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock formations, and that the earth was roughly 6,000 years old. From this position they opposed with equal vigor both the “uniformitarian” theory5 of earth history propounded by James Hutton and Charles Lyell, and the “catastrophist” theory6 of Georges Cuvier, William Buckland, William Conybeare, Adam Sedgwick, etc.

They also rejected, as compromises of Scripture, the gap theory,7 the day-age theory,8 the tranquil flood theory,9 the local flood theory,10 and the myth theory.11 Though all but the myth theory were advocated by Christians who believed in the divine inspiration and historicity of Genesis 1–11, the scriptural geologists believed their opponents’ theories were unconvincing interpretations of Scripture based on unproven old-earth theories of geology.

The Need for a Re-examination of these men

There are several reasons, besides merely satisfying our historical curiosity, why it is important to gain a better understanding of these scriptural geologists and the Genesis-geology debate. First, these British writers have received limited scholarly analysis and in what has been done they have been generally misunderstood and often mischaracterized, both by their contemporaries and by later historians. Typical is Charles Lyell, the leading uniformitarian geologist of their day, who described them in 1827 as “wholly destitute of geological knowledge” and unacquainted “with the elements of any one branch of natural history which bears on the science.” He said that they were “incapable of appreciating the force of objections, or of discerning the weight of inductions from numerous physical facts.” Instead he complained that “they endeavor to point out the accordance of the Mosaic history with phenomena which they have never studied” and “every page of their writings proves their consummate incompetence.”12

Turning to the historians, we find an equally disdaining view. In 1896, Andrew White, whose views had enormous influence on the next generation of historians, referred only to clerical scriptural geologists, such as James Mellor Brown.13

Quoting Brown and others out of context, White said that these scriptural geologists believed that geology was “not a subject of lawful inquiry,” “a dark art,” “dangerous and disreputable,” and “a forbidden province.”14 Also in 1896, William Williamson, professor of botany in Manchester, described the work of George Young, the most geologically competent scriptural geologist, as “prejudiced rubbish.”15

Moving into the 20th century, the scriptural geologists have been described as “scientifically worthless,”16 “scientifically illiterate Bibliolaters,” and “obscurantists.”17 And they were “vociferous,” negative, and defensive in their reaction to geology.18

Particularly pertinent to the present analysis of George Fairholme, John Murray, William Rhind, and George Young are comments by the late Harvard University geologist Stephen Gould: “By 1830, no serious scientific catastrophist believed that cataclysms had a supernatural cause or that the earth was 6,000 years old. Yet, these notions were held by many laymen, and they were advocated by some quasiscientific theologians.”19

Davis Young, a Christian geologist, progressive creationist, and prominent writer on the creation-evolution debate in America, has implied a similar view—these scriptural geologists had no real geological knowledge.

A torrent of books and pamphlets were published on “scriptural” geology and Flood geology, all designed to uphold the traditional point of view on the age and history of the world.20 The “heretical” and “infidel” tendencies of geology were roundly condemned by some churchmen, few of whom had any real knowledge of geology. Those who had geological knowledge were now largely convinced that the earth was very old.21

Charles Gillispie, an evolutionist and one of the most influential recent historians of early 19th century geology, was even more stinging in his general evaluation of the scriptural geologists when he stated that they were “men of the lunatic fringe,” who published “their own fantastic geologies and natural histories,” none of which “marked any advance on Kirwan,” who wrote at the turn of the 19th century. In fact, their ideas were all “too absurd to disinter.”22 He later continued:

The productions of men like George Fairholme, Andrew Ure, and John Pye Smith set forth sillier, less well-informed systems (than Vestiges23) reconciling the Mosaic record with empirically misconceived fact. Their errors cannot have seemed sufficiently damaging to science to merit professional refutation because no one bothered to refute them.24

In commenting on their significance, Gillispie concluded:

Although too neat a generalization would be erroneous, the arguments of one generation of purely theological disputants more or less reflected the interpretations of the obstructionist side in the discussions among scientists of the preceding generation. Granville Penn, for example, Dean Cockburn of York, and George Fairholme, to name three of the opponents of geology in Buckland’s time, leveled against the whole of the science—catastrophist as well as uniformitarian—arguments very similar to those with which Deluc and Kirwan had attacked the Huttonians 25 years earlier. . . . After Kirwan, no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation.25

Millhauser similarly described them as “foes of science” who were woefully ignorant of science and especially geology.26 Referring to these scriptural geologists, Haber condescendingly asserted that “geological science and the advancement of scientific truth [were] pilloried and stoned by the ignorant literalists” who vainly fought against “the heroic warriors in the army of science.”27 More recently, James Moore has expressed an equally negative view of these scriptural geologists: “Thus their typical ploy of ransacking geological works for contradictory assertions, for passages of which no real understanding is shown but which serve admirably to exercise and display the interpreter’s own proficiency in logic and linguistics.”[sic]28

Quite unlike most other contemporary historians, Nicolaas Rupke was somewhat positive in describing some of the scriptural geologists as competent naturalists. In his view, even some of the clergy were quite expert in the local geology around their parishes.29 Paul Marston acknowledged that they were not anti-geology, but only opposed to the old-earth geological theories.30 Nevertheless, these are very much minority views among historians. Whenever a group of people is so severely castigated by contemporaries and later historians, the student of history can be excused for being just a little suspicious that maybe there could be another side to the story. So it is important to investigate the evidence more closely and carefully, and as objectively as possible. As we shall see, the above evaluations of the scriptural geologists are wildly inaccurate.

A second reason for studying these men is that their views are very similar to those of modern young-earth creationists (YEC), even though there is no literary dependence of the latter on the former and most YEC have never heard of the scriptural geologists (prior to my research). The historical facts about the scriptural geologists stand as a strong corrective to the misleading argument of respected church historian, Mark Noll, who has castigated young-earth creationists for the scandalous use of their minds and for interpreting Genesis in a way that “no responsible Christian teacher in the history of the church” (before the 20th century) has.31

A third reason for studying the scriptural geologists is a fact closely related to the last point, namely, that recent historians of science have written a number of articles and books giving reinterpretations of the historic relation of science to religious belief.32 In this area the “warfare” thesis of White and Draper dominated scholarly thinking for far too long. According to them, science and Christianity were constantly in conflict and science won every battle.33 Brooke points out that this warfare thesis was flawed because 1) White and Draper only considered the extreme positions and neglected those who saw religion and science as complementary, and 2) they evaluated past scientific achievements on the basis of later, rather than contemporary, knowledge.34 Rudwick summarized the need for such fresh reinterpretations of the past when he stated:

This kind of scientific triumphalism is long overdue for critical reappraisal. Its claims to serious attention have been thoroughly demolished in other areas of the history of science, but it survives as an anomaly in the historical treatment of the relation of science to religious belief. This may be because the historians’ own attitudes are conditioned by the immature age at which religious beliefs and practices are abandoned by many, though not all, intellectuals in modern Western societies. This common experience may explain why many historians of science seem incapable of giving the religious beliefs of past cultures the same intelligent and empathic respect that they now routinely accord to even the strangest scientific beliefs of the past.35

This difficulty in giving a fair treatment of scientists who held strong religious beliefs, especially orthodox Christian beliefs, calls for a more careful assessment of the scriptural geologists, to whom the warfare myth continues to be applied.

Lastly, the battle that the scriptural geologists fought sheds much light on the modern creation-evolution debate in many countries and especially on the controversy within the church over the age of the earth. As will be seen, contrary to popular opinion both inside and outside the church, the controversy is not between science and religion, but between anti-biblical religions/philosophies and biblical Christianity. And those Christians who favor the approach of the “intelligent design” movement will have cause to reconsider the validity of that position on the age of the earth and on its strategy to reform science and culture. The origins debate was the nineteenth century and still is today a worldview conflict, a conflict over the assumptions used to interpret the geological evidence and a battle over the reliability and authority of the Bible.

How this book is organized

After a discussion of the historical context of the Genesis-geology debate, a separate chapter is devoted to each of seven scriptural geologists (presented roughly in chronological order). These seven writers wrote the most on this subject and represent the diversity of the scriptural geologists who were most active in the years 1820–45.36 In each of these chapters a biographical sketch is followed by a summary of the man’s views.

It is essential, as Porter has said, for the historian to allow people from the past to speak for themselves and to endeavor to understand them and their ideas in their own terms.37 Therefore, in the process of summarizing their arguments, I quote liberally from their writings. To do so is especially important because their works are not easily accessible to most readers, even to scholars.38

Having considered them individually, the last part of the book will make overall comparisons and generalizations in analysis and evaluation of the debate. I will suggest reasons for their engagement in the debate and for the response they received from their contemporary opponents.

A remark is in order about how the seven men I have analyzed were selected. The study has been restricted to Great Britain, because this was the heart of the debate.39 There were many other scriptural geologists who wrote on the subject in pamphlets, a chapter of a book, or book-length treatises during the years 1820–45, the period of their most intense opposition to old-earth theories.

Reverend Joseph Sutcliffe

The Reverend Joseph Sutcliffe, An Early Scriptural Geologist and Methodist Pastor.

In addition to the ones on which this book concentrates, the works of about 25 other scriptural geologists were also examined, though some in much less detail. These included the writings of Anglican clergymen such as Thomas Gisborne, Henry Cole, Samuel Best, William Cockburn, James Mellor Brown, Frederick Nolan, and Sharon Turner. The Methodist clergyman and geologist Joseph Sutcliffe, and the Anglican clergyman and famous entomologist William Kirby, likewise defended the view.

Others were Thomas Rodd (a bookseller), Fowler de Johnsone (a clergyman in an unknown denomination), William Brande (a prominent chemist and professor at the Royal Institution), William Martin (a natural philosopher), Walter Forman (a Royal Navy captain with strong interests in physics and astronomy), and Robert FitzRoy (Royal Navy captain of the H.M.S. Beagle on which Charles Darwin made his famous voyage).40 Six of these were discussed at length in my thesis (Gisborne, Cole, Best, Cockburn, Brown, and de Johnsone).41 All of the works related to the Genesis-geology debate of these 25 men not discussed here are listed in the bibliography, for those who care to pursue the subject further.

As a result of this broader study, I am satisfied that the seven men analyzed in this book accurately represent the whole class of writers. This provides a sound basis for the generalizations and conclusions at the end of the book.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. H.H. Read, The Granite Controversy (1957), p. xi. Back
  2. For example, see various letters by a Christian geologist, to the editor of the Christian Observer in 1839: Jan. (p. 25–31), Mar. (p. 145–148), April (p. 210–216), June (p. 346–348), July (p. 471–474). He obviously wanted to be considered by his fellow Christians as a “scriptural” geologist, even though he advocated an old-earth view. Back
  3. Lyell’s fellow uniformitarian, George P. Scrope, did this, according to a quotation in Martin J.S. Rudwick, “Poulett Scrope on the Volcanoes of Auvergne: Lyellian Time and Political Economy,” British Journal for the History of Science, vol. VII, no. 27 (1974), p. 226. Also, a scathing anonymous reviewer in the Christian Remembrancer, vol. XV (1833), p. 390, lumped together the old-earth geologist, William Higgins, and the scriptural geologist, George Fairholme. Baden Powell did the same in his Revelation and Science (1833), p. 44.
    Among historians, Marston did this with William M. Higgins, in his “Science and Meta-science in the Work of Adam Sedgwick” (The Open University, Ph.D. thesis, 1984), p. 280. Roy Porter classified William Buckland as a “Mosaic geologist” in “The Industrial Revolution and the Rise of the Science of Geology,” Changing Perspectives in the History of Science (1973), M. Teich and R.M. Young, editors, p. 341. Frances Haber did the same with several old-earth opponents in his The Age of the World (1959). In Genesis and Geology (1951), p. 163, Charles Gillispie likewise lumped together Fairholme, Ure, and John Pye Smith, the latter being the old-earth critic of the former two. Back
  4. Some of their evangelical and high church opponents held the same view of Genesis, but they differed with the scriptural geologists over what they believed to be the literal interpretation, as will be seen later. Back
  5. In this theory, geological features of the earth were formed over long ages by slow gradual processes of erosion, sedimentation, and faulting operating at the same rate and intensity as we observe today. Back
  6. This view held that many regional or global floods had been the primary agents during untold ages for the development of the geological record. Back
  7. The vast geological ages occurred before Genesis 1:3 and the rest of Genesis 1 is an account of recreation in six literal days on the geological ruins of the previously destroyed earth. Back
  8. The “days” of Genesis 1 are figurative, representing the vast geological ages. Back
  9. The Noachian flood was a global historical event, but it was such a peaceful event that it left no significant and lasting geological effects. Back
  10. The Flood was catastrophic but affected only the Mesopotamian valley. Back
  11. Genesis 1–11 is myth, which contains theological truths, but has little or no historical accuracy. Back
  12. Charles Lyell, Review of Memoir on the Geology of Central France by G.P. Scrope, Quarterly Review, vol. XXXVI, no. 72 (1827), p. 482. Lyell likely had in mind, among others, Granville Penn, George Bugg, and George Young, who all wrote substantial works on the subject before 1827 as will be discussed later. Back
  13. He is not discussed in this book but see the article on him at www.answersingenesis.org. Back
  14. Andrew D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896), I: p. 223. Back
  15. William C. Williamson, Reminiscences of a Yorkshire Naturalist (1896), p. 56. Back
  16. Martin Rudwick, “Charles Lyell, F.R.S. (1797–1875) and His London Lectures on Geology, 1832–33,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, vol. XXIX, no. 2 (1975), p. 237. The same remark appears in Rudwick’s “Introduction” to the 1990 edition of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, 1990, p. xi (footnote 3) and p. xvii. In his 1986 essay “The Shape and Meaning of Earth History,” in God and Nature, David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, editors (1986), p. 312, Rudwick makes the passing comment that some of the scriptural geologists supported their ideas “by at least some empirical fieldwork,” but he mentions no names. Back
  17. Walter F. Cannon, “The Impact of Uniformitarianism,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 105, no. 3 (1961), p. 302; Walter F. Cannon, “The Problem of Miracles in the 1830s,” Victorian Studies, vol. IV (1961), p. 15, 22–23; Walter F. Cannon, “Scientists and Broad Churchmen: An Early Victorian Intellectual Network,” Journal for British Studies, vol. IV (1964), p. 82. A similar view is expressed by Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church (1971), p. I:559-561. Back
  18. J. David Yule, “The Impact of Science on British Religious Thought in the Second Quarter of the Nineteenth Century” (1976, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University), p. 328 and 331. Back
  19. Stephen J. Gould, “Catastrophes and Steady State Earth,” Natural History, vol. 84, no.2 (1975), p. 16. Back
  20. Here in an endnote Young cites, without comment, the 1822 work of Granville Penn and the 1837 book by George Fairholme. In 1987, Young said of these two men that “despite some acquaintance with geology, [they] overlooked many important details of geology. The views of literalists no longer carried weight with Christians thoroughly trained in geology.” He mentions no other scriptural geologists of the period. See Davis Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part One),” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 49 (1987), p. 25. Back
  21. Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth (1988), p. 54. In his most recent book, The Biblical Flood (1995), p. 124–128, he is a little more generous when he states that “a few were competent field observers who had described regional geology.” He names George Young, but he briefly discusses only the views of Granville Penn, George Fairholme, and William Kirby. He does not mention John Murray and William Rhind, who along with Young were the most geologically competent scriptural geologists, and are discussed later. Back
  22. Charles C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951), p. 152. Back
  23. This was a book published anonymously (but written by Robert Chambers) in 1844, which presented a radical evolutionary view of the origin of biological life. It was vehemently opposed by virtually all scientists at the time, though it helped prepare the ground for Darwin’s Origin of Species 15 years later. Back
  24. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology, p. 163. Again there is confusion. Fairholme’s work was ignored by contemporary geologists. However, Ure’s received a scathing critique by Sedgwick, which will be analyzed, and Pye Smith’s views were greatly appreciated by the leading geologists, precisely because he favored the old-earth views, unlike Ure and Fairholme. Back
  25. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology, p. 223–224. Back
  26. Milton Millhauser, Just Before Darwin (1959), p. 52–56. Tom McIver largely follows Millhauser’s interpretations in his remarks on various books by scriptural geologists in his Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography (1988). Back
  27. Francis C. Haber, The Age of the World (1959), p. 204. Haber mentioned none of the geologically competent scriptural geologists. He referred to Penn only by name and devoted a page to Bugg, whom he called “a typical example of literalist opposition” to old-earth geological theories (p. 212). He named no scriptural geologists of the 1830s, when their writings were most numerous. Back
  28. James R. Moore, “Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” in God and Nature (1986), edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, p. 337. Back
  29. Nicolaas A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History: William Buckland and the English School of Geology 1814-1849 (1983), p. 41–47. Back
  30. V. Paul Marston, “Science and Meta-science in the Work of Adam Sedgwick” (The Open University, Ph.D. thesis, 1984), p. 290–308. However, in his discussion he gave only two sentences to the geologist George Young and makes no mention of John Murray, William Rhind, or George Fairholme. Back
  31. Mark Noll, Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994), p. 12–14. Noll mistakenly follows the agnostic Ronald Numbers, who in his book The Creationists (1992) attempts to root young-earth creationism in the teachings of Seventh Day Adventism. Back
  32. See, for example, David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, editors, God and Nature (1986); Roy Porter, “Charles Lyell and the Principles of the History of Geology,” British Journal for the History of Science, vol. IX, no. 32, Part 2 (1976), p. 91–103; Rhoda Rappaport, “Geology and Orthodoxy: The Case of Noah’s Flood in Eighteenth Century Thought,” British Journal for the History of Science, vol. XI (1978), p. 1–18; R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science (1972); R. Hooykaas, “Genesis and Geology,” New Interactions Between Theology and Natural Science (1974), p. 55–87; Eugene M. Klaaren, Religious Origins of Modern Science (1977), Nicolaas A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History: William Buckland and the English School of Geology 1814-1849 (1983). Back
  33. A.D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). John W. Draper, in his A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1875), held the same view but focused his attention on Catholics, rather than Protestants. Back
  34. John H. Brooke, Science and Religion (1991), p. 35–37. Back
  35. Martin J.S. Rudwick, “The Shape and Meaning of Earth History,” in God and Nature (1986), edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, p. 296–297. Back
  36. Most of the scriptural geologists were in Great Britain where for cultural, religious, and scientific reasons the debate was most intense. I found a few in America and there may have been some on the European continent, but I did not discover any. Back
  37. Roy Porter, The Making of Geology: Earth Science in Britain, 1660–1815 (Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 7. Back
  38. The writings of some of the scriptural geologists (Brown, Penn, Fairholme, Murray, and Young), along with some of their old-earth opponents (Chalmers, Pye Smith, and Miller) have been republished, though at exorbitant prices that only libraries are likely to pay. See “Creationism and Scriptural Geology, 1817–1857” at www.thoemmes.com/science/creationism.htm. Back
  39. As far as I know, the American and continental European scenes in the early 19th century still await a similar detailed study. Byron Nelson, in his The Deluge Story in Stone (1931), briefly referred to several American and European scriptural geologists at that time. A recent article on the American scriptural geologists is Rodney L. Stiling, “Scriptural Geology in America,” in David N. Livingstone, D.G. Hart, and Mark A. Noll, editors, Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective (1999), p. 177–192. Regarding Germany, help may be found in Stephan Holthaus, Fundamentalismus in Deutschland: Der Kampf um die Bibel im Protestantismus des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Biblia et Symbiotica 1, Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 1993. This is a Ph.D. dissertation from ETF-Leuven. Back
  40. Revised chapters of my thesis on Gisborne, Best, Cole, and Brown can be found on the Web at www.answersingenesis.org. Back
  41. It should be noted here that from 1790 to 1820 Richard Kirwan, André Deluc, James Parkinson, and Joseph Townsend were four prominent scientists who wrote in defense of Scripture, especially the Flood account, and therefore have sometimes been grouped with the “scriptural geologists” under study in this book. But like William Buckland in the 1820s, Deluc, Parkinson, and Townsend believed in a very old earth, and held to a day-age theory. Kirwan did not clearly state his view on the age of the earth, though probably he believed in a recent creation. See the bibliography for their works on the subject. Although these men were occasionally classed as “scriptural geologists,” the label was most generally applied in the early 19th century to those who rejected all old-earth theories. Back