Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Creationism Versus Geology

Creationism is the belief that our universe came into being in exactly the way described in the Bible's book of Genesis. This literal interpretation of the Bible's accountings of our beginnings has been embraced by some—but not all—Protestant Christians and Catholics. Many levels of the Catholic Church give Genesis a more allegorical or symbolic meaning, and Pope John Paul II publicly accepted the theory of evolution.

A History of the Debate

Since antiquity, humankind has tried to apply science to the Bible's description of creation, eventually giving rise to the science of origins and a natural theology, which considered that the marvels revealed by science through nature confirmed religion. In1748, Count Buffon proposed that the Earth could be millions of years old, an idea that outraged the theological authorities at Sorbonne, who forced him to publicly recant. Buffon went on to define seven geological eras, in accordance with the days in Genesis.

In the first part of 19th century, naturalists such as Louis Agassiz,Georges Cuvier, and Alcide d'Orbigny supported the idea of a series of successive extinctions and creations. Their catastrophism was used to integrate and reconcile the scientific discoveries of geology with the Bible's doctrine. But the Archbishop Ussher had established that the date of creation was 4004 BC, and the new data demonstrated that the Earth was many years older. Today's creationists consider the Great Flood responsible for all fossils, but early catastrophists did not.

By the middle of the 19th century, James Hutton's actualism and Charles Lyell's uniformitarism began to overtake catastrophism. Geology was an emerging science, and its paradigm questioned some of the constructs of creationism: the Great Flood, the direct creation of all animals by God, and the creation of human beings from clay. Lyell, particularly, presented theoretical foundations that set the stage for Charles Darwin's natural selection in the transformation of species and the theory of evolution. Only a few fossils were known in Darwin's time, and scientists could not find support to corroborate the evolutionary process using palaeontology until Simpson demonstrated the value of fossils to document the synthesis theory of evolution.

Acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution has been gradual. At the end of the 19th century, some renowned scientists remained opposed to the theory. Some, such as the geologist James D. Dana, defended evolutionism but supported the specific creation of human beings and the comparison between day and geological era. Others, including Arnold Guyot, a naturalist from Princeton, and the Canadian geologist John W. Dawson not only compared day and era, but attempted to harmonize science and the Bible by invoking a singular creation for matter, life, and humankind.

In 1909, C. I. Scofield published a version of the Bible that enforced Thomas Chalmers's idea that there were long intervals of time between the events described in verse 1 and verse2 in the first chapter of Genesis. This explanation allowed the time required by earth sciences between the first destruction and a new creation. At the same time, geologist and Protestant minister George F. Wright began a text on Christian opinions about evolution. In the1920s, evolutionists in some parts of the United States were persecuted, and various professors resigned.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading