Geological facts; or, the crust of the earth, what it is, and what are its uses

by W. G. Barrett

These are questions surely of no common importance. Neither the Christian nor the doubter act a consistent part in ignoring them. Should the Christian say, “I want no teachings of science: I want no learned phrases and learned researches to assist me in understanding my Bible: for aught I care, all the ‘ologies’ in the world may perish as carnal literature: I know the Book is true, and decline any controversy with the mere intellectual disputant;” and if the Christian should go on to add, as probably he would in such a state of mind, and as, alas! too many have done to the lasting disgust and alienation of the thoughtful and intelligent: “These are the doubts of a ‘philosophy falsely so called:’ science has nothing to do with Revelation: they have separate paths to pursue; let them each go their own way: and should there come a collision between the two, we are prepared to give up all science once and for ever, whatever it may teach, rather than have our views upon Revelation disturbed:”—now, if the Christian talks like that, he is acting a most unwise part. He is doing in his limited sphere of influence what the Prussian Government intended to have done when Strauss’ “Life of Christ” appeared. It was the heaviest blow that unbelief had ever struck against Christianity, and the Government of Prussia with several theological professors were disposed to prosecute its author, and forbid the sale of the book. But the great Neander deprecated this course, as calculated to give the work a spurious celebrity, and as wearing the aspect of a confession that the book was unanswerable. He advised that it should be met, not by authority, but by argument, believing that the truth had nothing to fear in such a conflict. His counsel prevailed, and the event has shown that he was right.

If, on the other hand, the doubter should say, “The intelligence of the day has outgrown our household faiths; men are no longer to be held in trammels of weakness and superstition, or to be dragooned into Religion;—the old story about the Bible, why, you know we can’t receive that, and look upon those compilations that pass by that name as divinely inspired Books; we have long since been compelled to abandon the thought that Christianity has any historic basis, or that its Books have any claim upon the reverence or faith of the nineteenth century, as of supernatural origin.”

To such an one I should say, that this begging of the question, this petitio principii, is no argument; these are statements that require every one of them a thorough demonstration before they are admitted; you deny the Christian one single postulate: you deny him the liberty of taking anything for granted; and then begin yourself with demanding his assent unquestioned to so large a postulate as your very first utterance involves, “that the intelligence of the age has outgrown our household faiths.” Before you proceed you must prove that; and we must know what is meant by those terms, before we can stand upon common ground, and hold anything like argument upon these debated points.

From such general observations let us come to the precise objects before us: Geology and Scripture are supposed to be at variance specially on three points. The age of the earth: the introduction of death: and the Noachian Deluge. These apparent contradictions are the most prominent difficulties, and cause the most startling doubts among those who imagine Science to be antagonistic to Christian revelation. I propose to devote a little attention to each of these questions, while I endeavour honestly to show how, in my opinion, apparent contradictions may be reconciled. The questions are these, to state them in a popular form: 1. Is the world more than 6,000 years old? and if it is, how are the statements of Scripture and Geology to be reconciled? 2. Was death introduced into the world before the fall of man? and if it was, how are the truths of Scripture on this question to be explained? and, 3. What was the character of the Noachian Deluge? was it partial or universal? and what are the apparent discrepancies in this case, between science and the Bible?

Perhaps before I proceed a step further I ought to add that, in my belief, the age of the earth, so far as its material fabric, i.e. its crust, is concerned, dates back to a period so remote, and so incalculable, that the epoch of the earth’s creation is wholly unascertained and unascertainable by our human arithmetic; whether this is contradicted in the Scripture, is another question.

With regard to the introduction of death, I believe that death upon a most extensive scale prevailed upon the earth, and in the waters that are under the earth, ages, yea countless ages, before the creation of man—before the sin of any human being had been witnessed; that is what Geology teaches most indisputably: whether the Scriptures contradict this statement, is another question.

With regard to the Noachian Deluge, I believe that it was quite partial in its character, and very temporary in its duration; that it destroyed only those animals that were found in those parts of the earth then inhabited by man; and that it has not left one single shell, or fossil, or any drift or other remains that can be traced to its action. Whether the Scriptures teach any other doctrine, is another question.

By this time the ground between us is narrowed, and I may probably anticipate that I shall have objections to answer, or misapprehensions to remove, quite as much on the part of those who devoutly believe, as on the part of those who honestly doubt the Christian Scriptures.

First then,

I. How old is the world? How many years is it since it was called into being, as one of the planets? How many centuries have elapsed since its first particle of matter was created?