Joseph Smith as Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy

by John Andreas Widtsoe

It is possible in various ways to arrive at a conception of the age of the earth since organic life came upon it. For instance, the gorge of the Niagara Falls was begun in comparatively recent days, yet, judging by the rate at which the falls are now receding, it must have been at least 31,000 years since the making of the gorge was first begun, and it may have been nearly 400,000 years.[A] Lord Kelvin, on almost purely physical grounds, has estimated that the earth cannot be more than 100,000,000 years old, but that it may be near that age.[B] It need not be said, probably, that all such calculations are very uncertain, when the actual number of years are considered; but, all human knowledge, based upon the present appearance of the earth and the laws that control known phenomena, agree in indicating that the age of the earth is very great, running in all probability into millions of years. It must have been hundreds of thousands of years since the first life was placed upon earth.

[Footnote A: Dana's New Text Book of Geology, p. 375.]

[Footnote B: Lectures and Addresses, vol. 2, p. 10.]

[Sidenote: The war concerning the earth's age has helped theology and science.]

When these immense periods of time were first suggested by students of science, a great shout of opposition arose from the camp of the theologians. The Bible story of creation had been taken literally, that in six days did the Lord create the heavens and the earth; and it was held to be blasphemy to believe anything else. The new revelation, given by God in the message of the rocks, was received as a man-made theory, that must be crushed to earth. It must be confessed likewise that many of the men of science, exulting in the new light, ridiculed the story told by Moses, and claimed that it was an evidence that the writings of Moses were not inspired, but merely man-made fables.

The war between the Mosaic and the geological record of creation became very bitter and lasted long, and it led to a merciless dissection and scrutiny of the first chapter of Genesis, as well as of the evidence upon which rests the geological theory of the age of the earth. When at last the din of the battle grew faint, and the smoke cleared away, it was quickly perceived by the unbiased on-lookers, that the Bible and science had both gained by the conflict. Geology had firmly established its claim, that the earth was not made in six days of twenty-four hours each; and the first chapter of Genesis had been shown to be a marvelously truthful record of the great events of creation.

[Sidenote: The word day in Genesis refers to indefinite time periods.]

Moses, in the first chapter of Genesis, enumerates the order of the events of creation. First, light was brought to the earth and was divided from darkness, "and the evening and the morning were the first day." Then the firmament was established in the midst of the waters, "and the evening and the morning were the second day." After each group of creative events, the same expression occurs, "and the evening and the morning were the third [fourth, fifth, and sixth] days." Those who insisted upon the literal interpretation of the language of the Bible maintained that the word day, as used in Genesis 1, referred to a day of twenty-four hours, and that all the events of creation were consummated by an all-powerful God in one hundred and forty-four earthly hours. An examination of the original Hebrew for the use of the word translated "day" in Genesis, revealed that it refers more frequently to periods of time of indefinite duration.[A] When this became clear, and the records of the rocks became better known, some theologians suggested, that as we are told that a thousand years are as one day to God, the day of Genesis 1 refers to periods of a thousand years each. This did not strengthen the argument. The best opinion of today, and it is well-nigh universal, is that the Mosaic record refers to indefinite periods of time corresponding to the great divisions of historical geology.

[Footnote A: Compare The Mosaic Record of Creation, A. McCaul, D. D., p. 213.]

Even as late as the sixties and seventies of the last century this question was still so unsettled as to warrant the publication of books defending the Mosaic account of creation.[A]