APR 5 IS2< 550 C13g ■ CALVIN GEOLOGY AND REVELATION ■■i ' ^ qeology UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN The person charging this material is responsible for its renewal or return to the library on or before the due date. The minimum fee for a lost item is $ 125 . 00 , $ 300.00 for bound journals. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. Please note: self-stick notes may result in torn pages and lift some inks. Renew via the Telephone Center at 217-333-8400, 846-262-1510 (toll-free) orcirclib@uiuc.edu. Renew online by choosing the My Account option at: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/catalog/ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/geologyrevelatioOOcalv GEOLOGY AND REVELATION THE PRINTER TO THE READER Professor Calvin’s address, as presented in the following pages, wa printed for members and students of the Okoboji Lakeside Laborator of the State University of Iowa, in an edition of only eight hundred an| twenty-five copies, for private circulation. I A member of the staff, in the printing-house wherein the work wa struck off, encouraged by some acquaintance with Doctor Calvin, solicite and obtained the privilege of printing a few extra copies for his own usi Twenty-five copies, on this special paper, constitute the additional issm The only changes from the original edition are on the title page and i the adding of the first two pages and cover. The printer, without takin counsel, has presumed to construct anew the title on the opposite pag From the official publication of the Iowa State University is taken Doct( Calvin’s titles and his rank in the institution, of which he is the seni( professor in length of service; and from the “Iowa Official Register ” h public position of State Geologist, an office he has filled through yeai with credit and honor to Iowa and to himself. That he is crowned i the love of his students and associates and in the regard of all his fellov citizens has been shown on many occasions. No man of to-day is better qualified by education, environment, ar temperament to speak in authority upon the subject of this address ths Doctor Calvin. He has been Professor of Geology at the State Universii for thirty-five years; he is known and is honored in science the wor; around ; his personal life is that of a worshiping christian devoted to tl faith of his ancestors, a faith based not on conformity to a creed, a fail that reaches down to and nourishes the springs of life; and that bad{ of high honor, the bronze button, tells that to him liberty is more than lif His earnest, dispassionate address will commend itself to the readc|[ The scholarship, the sincerity, the reverence of the speaker permeate ill every thought. J. S. | Iowa City, Iowa, July, 1909. j SAMUEL CALVIN GE0I06Y ANB BEVELATION AN ADDRESS BY SAMUEL CALVIN, LL.D., F. G. S. A. PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OP GEOLOGY IN THE STATE UNIVERSITY OP IOWA STATE GEOLOGIST OF IOWA DELIVERED BEFORE THE MEMBERS OF THE OKOBOJI LAKESIDE LABORATORY ON SUNDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINE IOWA CITY, IOWA PRIVATELY PRINTED 1909 A, i! h i .i o o . t; In IT 6"^C) C \ "5 9 . c/ !'■(/ GEOLOGY AND REVELATION It is with many misgivings and no small degree of hesitation that your speaker approaches the subject of the relations that exist between Geology and Genesis, between Science and what has been assumed to be Revelation. For let it be said to begin with that he makes no claim to either the training or the special aptitude which should qualify him for interpreting the teachings of the Bible; neither does he claim the right to stand here as the representative of Science. In what follows an attempt will be made to show how the relations of material science to supposed revelation may be viewed by one who has devoted some years, with more or less success, to the study of the facts and doctrines of modern Geology and Biologj". And so, to plunge at once into the midst of the subject, it may be conceded that the teachings of both of these sciences have run contrary to long accepted interpretations of portions of the Bible. The teachings of Geology, in particular, seemed to cast discredit on some of the plain, unequivocal statements of scripture, especially on the first and second chapters of Genesis. A very natural result followed. The adherents of literal biblical interpretation, who imagined that the foundations of religious faith were about to be undermined, and the advocates of science, who found it impossible to deny the facts of Nature or interpret them otherwise than as they did, were converted into two oppos- o 2 Geology and Revelation ing hosts between which there raged for years a controversy remarkable for the intellectual vigor as well as for the bitterness with which it was carried on. This controversy, which has erroneously been called a “Controversy between Science and Eeligion”, has been in a fact a “Controversy between Science and certain Conceptions and Interpreta- tions of the Bible’’. It is a matter of some significance that, between the two opposing hosts, we have had a small army of Reconcilers who have busied themselves in well meant efforts to patch up a peace between the combatants. Among these recon- cilers have been many conspicuous for their lack of capac- ity even to understand the subjects of contention, and, like other uninformed meddlers, they have done more harm than good. On the other hand, however, there have been illustrious names, not a few, beginning with Hugh Miller and Hitchcock and forming a continuous series down to those who have given us the latest deliverances on the subject, among whom, deserving reverent and respectful mention, are two who, in recent years, have joined the great majority on the other shore, Dana and Gladstone. Thus it is that intellectual giants have had their say, first on one side, then on the other, and again in that middle ground where reconcilers have stood and so earnestly labored. Is there anything more to be said? It must seem like presumption or something worse to bring here a theme so worn, a theme that has been so thoroughly and ably discussed from every possible point of view, a theme prac- tically exhausted. While, therefore, I cannot hope to bring you anything new, I may venture to repeat what you Geology and Revelation 3 have heard before, that the whole controversy has arisen largely, if not wholly, from misapprehension of the pur- poses and proper fields of science and revelation; that when these purposes and distinctive fields of activities are understood and everywhere recognized, there will be no controversy, and the reconcilers will be remanded to the limbo of things unnecessary. It will be profitable to set clearly before our minds the state of affairs from which the intellectual world has emerged, or is happily emerging. The sciences of Geology and Biology have contributed their full share during the last three quarters of a century to revolutionize our con- ceptions of nature. The notions that were very generally entertained a century ago respecting the age and origin of our planet and all that it contains, seemed to be supported bj- the teachings of the Bible; indeed they were based on what were apparently its plain, positive, unequivocal, straightforward statements; and any disturbance of those notions seemed to involve the very authenticity of the sa- cred Word. Hence arose the controversy to which we have alluded, a controversy not quite settled even now ; for some remnant of the tumultuous intellectual heavings that were generated during years of stormy discussion between sci- ence and theology still makes itself felt with sufficient force to produce more or less disquietude, even in those serene places where culture and intelligence most do flourish. In some quarters where breadth of vision is not an overshad- owing characteristic, a sort of mimic storm of discussion is yet maintained with the result that science, and especially geological science, is still viewed by many with profound 4 Geology and Revelation distrust. While, however, there are these occasional out- bursts from the old combatants, like the small gusts that follow a departing storm, it is gratifying to record the fact that on the side of Theology, at least, a spirit of fair- ness, of compromise, of charity and conciliation has, for some time, been manifest. It is realized that, after all, material science and Theology are not enemies and never have been. There can be no cause for contention between them. Both are earnestly and honestly seeking after truth. Manifestly their aims and conquests lie in different direc- tions and in wholly different fields. Therefore it is that our most enlightened biblical scholars now receive the conclusions of science without protest. Men who in the most eminent degree combine sincere piety with profound learning and clear vision relative to the aims and origin of the scriptures, regard the progress of science with sim- ple, unshakable faith that the great text book of morals and religion, the book that always and everywhere has led men up from darkness and superstition to indescribable heights of intellectual and spiritual privilege, can never, through any conceivable possibility, be disturbed by state- ments respecting the facts of the material universe, whether the statements be true or false. The objects of science and the great aim and purpose of the Bible being clearly under- stood, scientific conclusions are even welcomed with the confident expectation that, instead of overthrowing the authority of scripture, they will afford clearer and larger views of its sublime significance. On the heights whence men get broad spiritual and intellectual vision, it is seen and gratefully admitted that religion is the gainer from Geology and Revelation 5 every conquest made in the domain of science. In conse- quence of the truer and grander conceptions of the mate- rial universe which science is continually unfolding, God is exalted, man is ennobled, human reverence and human faith are deepened and intensified. President White puts the whole case clearly and forcibly in this one sentence: — ^‘All untrammelled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good of religion and of science.’’ Astronomy was for a long time regarded with special aversion by the literal interpreters of the Bible, but the contest between Astronomy and Theology has long been settled. I refer to the matter merely for the purpose of indicating at this point the only terms of peace on which such a controversy can ever be settled, the terms, namely, which Astronomers secured and which granted to them forever the right to have their own way, to think their own thoughts, to pursue any line of investigation that falls appropriately within the sphere of their science by their own methods, and to hold and teach unreservedly their own conclusions. This may seem to be a very one-sided sort of a peace, but it is the only one that is either rational or possible, and all who know the facts will admit that Theology gained far more by granting these terms than Astronomy gained in receiving them. Astronomers abated naught of the energy with which they pushed their investi- •gations, nor did they modify their teachings in any, even the slightest particular; but reverent students of the Bible came to see that it mattered not what Astronomy taught. 6 Geology and Revelation God was still maker and ruler of his universe, and man^s moral and religious needs and obligations remained abso- lutely unchanged. Geology, as a science, is much more recent than Astron- omy. It has had the misfortune to run counter to an unusual number of biblical statements which seemed to be couched in language unmistakably plain. These statements formed the very warp and woof of popular belief relative to human origin, human duty, human obligation, and even human destiny. They seemed to constitute a necessary part of the very foundations of religious practice and instruction. For these reasons it has happened that, within the memory of some present, Geology, quite as much as any other science, has had to bear the odious charge of being particularly subversive of the Christian faith. It is not necessary to go beyond the bounds of personal knowledge to find justifi- cation for the statement that the relation of Geology to the Bible is still regarded by some very excellent people as open to suspicion. At all events, the terms of peace be- tween Geology and Theology are not as completely settled, or at least are not as well understood, as in the case of Astronomy. It may be well at this point to examine the reasons for the unfavorable estimate in which Geology has but recently been held by many and still is held by not a few. First then, the earliest clear perception of the import of geologic phenomena made it plain that the popular view relative to the origin and age of the world was wholly untenable. People believed that their belief was founded on the first chapter of Genesis, and hence, in their judgment, if the Geology and Revelation 7 claims of Geology were admitted, the Bible would have to be rejected. If Geology were true, from their point of view the Bible was plainly false. If geologic notions were to become established in the minds of the people, the authority of the Bible would be overthrown, and that meant the overthrow of all moral and religious authority. Men would thus be left to struggle through a world of sin and sorrow without light, without guidance in the midst of gloom all-pervading, without comfort in times of trouble, without a ray of hope for the future. Do you wonder that, animated by such notions, beset with such fears, they met the seemingly pernicious doctrines of Geology with a storm of indignant protest ? Do you wonder that they used every argument and every other means possible to avert threat- ened danger to a faith that had been of so much value to the race of sin-burdened men, and that seemed at once necessary to the maintenance of social order and the main- tenance of human dignity? The chronology of Archbishop Usher, notwithstanding its lack of foundation in verifiable data, had met with gen- eral acceptance, and its dates being printed in the margins of the reference bibles, were regarded by ninety-nine out of every hundred as of equal authority with the texts to which they are appended. According to this chronology, — and this with many persons was equivalent to saying ac- cording to the plain teachings of the Bible itself, — the earth and all it contains were brought into being by a sud- den creative fiat about 6,000 years ago. Geology, on the other hand, asserts that the age of the world must be measured by millions and millions of years. The biblical 8 Geology and Revelation account seems to state unequivocally that all animals and plants were, by a few creative efforts, introduced prac- tically all at once, at least within the space of three or four natural days. Geology shows conclusively that the intro- duction of animals and plants has been a continuous pro- cess, beginning in the haze and obscurity of a bypast eternity, and extending without break or interruption over all the long, countless ages of geologic time. The literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis makes it seem to assert that the earliest animals preceded man by some forty- eight hours at most; Geology demonstrates the existence of animals through unnumbered ages before any creature resembling man had, or could have had, a possible exist- ence. Again, there can be no question that the literal reading of Genesis makes it teach that ‘‘grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind’^, preceded by several hours the introduction of even aquatic animal life. Geology shows incontestably that the ancient oceans had swarmed with animal forms in bound- less profusion, that generation after generation, and even species after species, had lived, culminated, perished, and by the slow process of development had been succeeded by other species in countless swarms, through the long lapse of millions of years, before grass, or herb yielding seed, or fruit tree yielding fruit, had any place anywhere on all the round habitable globe. Literal reading again makes Gene- sis teach that about the time when the waters brought forth abundantly the “moving creature that hath life’’, and while as yet terrestrial animals were not, neither cattle nor creeping thing nor beast of the earth after his kind. Geology and Revelation 9 every winged fowl that may fly above the earth in the open Armament of heaven was ushered into being. Geology contradicts all this by showing the presence of multitudes of beasts of the earth and of things that creep, long before there was a winged fowl in existence. Furthermore, the facts of Geology are, in this instance, supported by the theoretical deductions of Biology. Biology would say that such an order as that given in Genesis is unthinkable, for winged fowl, whether the term mean birds or bats or ptero- dactyls or dragon flies, have been derived by special modi- fication from terrestrial forms, and therefore, of necessity, presuppose the existence of unmodified terrestrial ances- tors. The authorized version again places the introduction of ‘‘great whales’’ prior to the appearance of any land animals. Now if whales are really meant, or if, as some have professed to believe, reference is here made to the great swimming lizards of the Mesozoic, geologic facts and scriptural interpretation are again at variance. Land animals were numerous and widely distributed before either whales or swimming lizards appeared. Indeed, these creatures, like birds, are modified offspring of terrestrial predecessors, and so Geology and Biology would unite in denying both the fact and the possibility of ‘ ‘ great whales ’ ’ occupying the place in the order of animal succession ascribed to them in the literal rendering and acceptance of the proem to Genesis. Then again, it happened that the too narrow and literal interpretation of the Word led to the belief that physical suffering and physical death entered the world in conse- quence of Adam’s transgression. Paul’s utterances in 10 Geology and Revelation Romans 5:12, and also in 1 Cor. 15:21 and 22, could be interpreted so as to lend support to such a view. Milton may be regarded as the prophet and exponent of the popularly accepted interpretation of many passages of scripture, these among the rest; and so for information concerning what was the current belief on many topics among the men of his generation we need only turn to that immortal product of imaginative genius. Paradise Lost. Here we find the poet describing Sin and Death sitting within the gates of hell immediately after the return of the tempter from his successful visit to Eden; sitting, as he says, ‘‘In eounterview within the gates, that now Stood open wide, belching outrageous flame Far into Chaos. Sin addresses Death proposing an immediate journey to the new-created world where their great author, Satan, had, by accomplishing man’s ruin, provided for them a happier seat, and Death makes significant answer: — “ ‘Go, whither fate and inclination strong Leads thee; I shall not lag behind, nor err The way, thou leading; such a scent I draw Of carnage, prey innumerable, and taste The savor of death from all things there that live.’ So saying, with delight he snuffed the smell Of mortal change on earth.” In other passages the poet expresses the same thought that physical death had entered the world through Adam’s sin. Our own parents and grandparents, you will remem- ber, entertained the same views. It was also believed that Geology and Revelation 11 the suffering and death to which all sentient creatures are now subject are not only a direct consequence of the original transgression, but they are the attestation and confirmation of all that is said and believed concerning the sinless innocence of our first ancestors, and of their sub- sequent temptation and fall. Imagine then the general horror when Geology apparently laid profane hands on one of the fundamental supports of the doctrine of original sin. For if Geology teaches anything with certainty, it is that suffering and death have been coextensive with life, and were as much a factor in animal existence for millions of years before there was an Adam to sin and fall as they have been since. Every rocky stratum that was slowly piled up in the old geologic seas, is but a great cemetery in which the remains of once sentient creatures, in un- counted numbers, now lie entombed. Go where we will among the hardened sediments that constitute the rocky framework of our continents and we find everywhere graves. Almost every particle of matter of which these stony cemeteries are made up, bears evidence of having once throbbed with life, such was the boundless profusion in which organic things were supported in the ancient seas. And only a minute fraction of the stupendous history of life and death is embraced within the narrow limits of the period since man came to sin and, like all his fellow crea- tures of all geologic time, to suffer and die. Moreover, the notion of the ideal innocence with which the whole lower animal creation, prior to the fall, has been credited, re- ceives a severe shock from the geologic fact that among the multitudes of creatures that swarmed in the seas or strug- 12 Geology and Revelation gled for sustenance on the land, there has always been a large proportion of carnivorous species. Predatory, re- morseless, cruel creatures there always have been in abun- dance; creatures endowed by Nature with sharpened tooth and claw or other similar weapons, bestowed upon them, shall we say, for the very purpose of inflicting suffering on their fellows. If this be not quite true, it is certain at all events that they possessed these weapons and that they used them daily against their fellows in supplying their own needs, and in cruel disregard of the suffering that must incidentally and necessarily be inflicted. There were, indeed, ‘^Dragons of tlie prime, That tare each other in their slime, and with as little remorse tare multitudes of innocent creatures to which Nature had denied powers of effectual resistance. These are some of the counts that have been brought by the elder school of biblical interpreters against Geology, these are some of the particulars in which the differences between Genesis and Geology seem to be irreconcilable. We might easily mention a number of other counts in the same indictment. For example. Geology has never been considered quite orthodox in the matter of a universal flood during the period of human occupation, nor is it orthodox either in respect to the origin, the primal con- dition, or the antiquity of man. The history of organic life is inseparably bound up with the geological history of the physical world. Looked at from one point of view. Geology and Biology are essen- Geology and Revelation 13 tially the same. Now Biology has for one of its great central doctrines the derivation of species of animals and plants from preexisting species, by modifications brought about through the agency of natural causes. Moreover, these causes have been operating through all the eons of geological time and are still operating with as much energy and elfect as ever. How far these views run contrary to the old conceptions of what is taught in the Bible con- cerning the origin of animal and plant life, it were need- less to point out. Milton again, in his own masterly and matchless way, voices the popular conception of his time relative to what the Bible actually teaches concerning the origin of animal life. With some poetic license, but in a manner that did no violence to the generally accepted inter- pretation of what followed the command, “Let the earth bring forth”, expressed in Genesis 1:25, Milton gives us one of the most sublime and most graphic of pictures created by the genius of man. ^‘The eartti obeyed, and straight Opening her fertile womb, teemed at a birth Innumerous living creatures, perfect forms, Limbed and full grown: out of the ground up rose, ■ As from his lair the wild beast, where he wons In forest wild, in thicket, brake, or den; Among the trees in pairs they rose, they walked: The cattle in the fields and meadows green: Those rare and solitary, these in flocks • Pasturing at once, and in broad herds upsprung. ^ The grassy clods now calved; now half appeared The tawny lion, pawing to get free His hinder parts, then springs, as broke from bonds. And rampant shakes his brinded mane; the ounce, ' 14 Geology and Revelation The libbard^ and the tiger, as the mole Eising, the crumbled earth above them threw In hillocks: the swift stag from under ground Bore up his branching head: scarce from his mould Behemoth, biggest born of earth, upheaved His vastness.’’ And so, with swift and masterly strokes, the picture is drawn, leaving us in no doubt as to what men, a few gener- ations ago, believed to be taught, by the authority of Divine revelation, concerning the manner in which the highly specialized modern types of animal life came into being. From the stand point of science we get a view of a con- tinuous process, under definite and orderly law, extending over all the countless ages of a bygone eternity; from the other point of view, it was only a few thousand years ago that all types and grades of animals and plants sprang suddenly and miraculously into being in obedience to three or four creative fiats which followed each other at intervals of only a few hours ; and then, creation being complete, the whole process ceased forever. Could divergence of views be more radical or extreme ? Small wonder is it that, under such circumstances, there should have been some clash and conflict. Some of the members of this audience will be able to recall the sentiments of extreme opposition with which the evolutionary doctrines of Geology, including Biology, were regarded, and the grounds on which science, on ac- count of its attitude toward evolution, was attacked by sincere and honest leaders of religious thought. The air even yet echoes the thunderings of the heavy artillery with which the positions of science were but recently and vigor- ously assailed. Geology and Revelation 15 It would not be profitable to pursue this part of the subject farther. What has been said is probably sufficient to illustrate the difficulties that the reconcilers set them- selves to overcome. It certainly seems that the more critic- ally the teachings of science and Genesis are compared, the more hopeless grows the outlook for a satisfactory reconciliation of their differences. Nevertheless, as already said, we are on the point of securing terms of peace, in fact the peace is even now practically secured, alike satis- factory to science and theology. These terms are such as to leave even Geology and its intimate associate, Biology, in full enjoyment of the same unrestricted liberty which, in an earlier stage of the conflict, was accorded to Astron- omy. Science is not infallible. It has made many mis- takes and it will make many more. Its errors, however, like all other errors, have neither abiding force nor vitality in them. They can work no injury to revelation, and the truth certainly will not. Scientific errors can only be rectified by students of science, pursuing scientific methods, and never by any reading, literal or otherwise, of sacred texts. The attacks on science which have sought to accom- plish its confusion and overthrow by hurling texts at it, have always beOn productive of mischief, and of mischief only. They have never corrected a single error, and it requires no spirit of prophecy to say that they never will. The most earnest and sincere of biblical students now see that they can well afford to let science alone. They can go even farther and bid it God speed in full assurance that its final conclusions in the future, as in the past, will result in deepening religious faith, while detracting nothing from IG Geology and Revelation the authority of the sacred Word. And all this is coming about wholly independent of schemes of reconciliation whereby the texts of scripture are distorted and mangled to make their literal wording seem to agree with the con- clusions of physical science, I think enough has been said to show that no such scheme of reconciliation is possible. To my mind any attempt to reconcile Geology and Genesis by forcing a parallelism between Mosaic cosmogony and geologic history, is, in the present state of affairs, simply mischievous. Substitute geologic periods for days if you will, give to other words of the book any arbitrary mean- ing that your ingenuity can devise, and after you have exhausted all your inventive genius your scheme will, of necessity, end in dismal failure. On any assumption that the first of Genesis is intended either as a literal or sym- bolic record of scientific facts, or that it has any relation to, or connection with, scientific facts, the Bible and geology are absolutely irreconcilable. Then if we could, by some happy exercise of ingenuity, construe the language of the first chapter of the book so as to bring it into harmony with the order of events shown in the geologic record, what should we do with the second chapter? One order of creation is given in the first, a wholly different order is given in the second, the order in either case being hopelessly at variance with the ascertained facts of science. Nothing, I think, could better illustrate the entire absence of any intention to treat physical phenomena with scientific ac- curacy than the different accounts of creation in the two chapters mentioned. There they stand, side by side, at the very beginning of the book, to serve emphatic notice upon Geology and Revelation 17 all who will but take warning, that teaching the truths of material science is wholly foreign to the purpose of the Bible. Fifty years ago schemes of reconciliation between Genesis and Geology were popular, and at that time they probably rendered excellent service alike to science and religion. Modern biblical criticism was then unknown, and the hard, dry, literal rendering of scriptural texts was the common practice. Geology, a science that had over and over again been rendered abhorrent in popular esteem by its persistent contradiction of what was assumed to be revealed truth, had been rendered still more odious by the use made of it by the aggressive enemies of religion. These enemies have ever been on the alert to get possession of any and all weapons that gave promise of enabling them to batter down the defenses of religious truth. And so when, early in the last century, the theologians declared that if Geology were proved true, the authority of the Bible would be over- thrown, the atheists with one accord became champions of Geology, hoping to see the new science established and the fears and predictions of the theologians verified. This they did, not because they loved Geology or knew anything about it, or cared anything about it, but because, taking the theologians at their word, they expected this science to become a serviceable weapon which would help them to win against their adversaries. It has been the same with evolu- tion, it has been the same with every other phase of science ; the theologian has expressed his fears and uttered his dis- mal predictions, and the atheist has straightway rushed to the ill-advised defence of science, prompted only by the 18 Geology and Revelation hope that the predictions of the theologian would be ful- filled. And so when the enemies of religion were bringing odium upon the new science of Geology by using it as a battering ram against the strongholds of biblical truth, the world probably needed a Hitchcock and a Hugh Miller to propose methods of harmonizing scripture with the geologic record. It was of more importance, however, that the Hitchcocks and the Hugh Millers could demonstrate in their own lives that the foremost of geologists could still be simple and consistent Christians. As Geology grew, schemes of reconciliation needed con- stant readjustment. An arrangement that seemed to make a fairly satisfactory sort of harmony one day, was alto- gether out of harmony the next ; and so, though the earlier reconcilers rendered valuable service to both science and religion, there came a time when efforts at reconciliation were harmful rather than helpful. The latest notable at- tempt to bring Geology and the literal record of Genesis into harmony, that made by Gladstone some years ago, is doubtless fresh in the minds of some present. The swift defeat which the eminent reconciler met at the hands of Professor Huxley, ought effectually to discourage further efforts in this direction. What then is the attitude of the Christian geologist to the Bible ? Simply the attitude of Galileo and of all scien- tists since his time, that the Bible is not a text book of science. While referring frequently to natural phenomena, it refers to such phenomena as they were seen and under- stood by the common people of the age in which it was written, as they are seen and understood by a very large Geology and Revelation 19 proportion of the population of the world to-day, and wholly without regard to scientific accuracy. Its science, therefore, so far as it has any, is the science of the times of its several writers. I think, however, it might easily be shown that many of the texts which were quoted with the expectation of bringing confusion on science and convicting it of ignorance and infidelity, were never intended to have literal reference to material phenomena at all. They occur in lofty, imaginative, poetic passages and have no more relation to science than have the poems of Tennyson or Longfellow. Is science to be stigmatized as atheistical be- cause its actual discoveries do not accord in every particular with such poetic imagery? On the other hand, shall the Bible be rejected and thrown aside as a collection of old wives’ fables because its splendid metaphors are not cast in the precise language in which science expresses its latest generalizations ? Take any passage at random from Tenny- son ’s ^‘In Memoriam”, this for example: — ‘‘I falter where I firmly trod, And, falling with my weight of cares Upon the great world’s altar stairs That slope through darkness up to God. I stretch lame hands of faith and grope And gather dust and chaff.” Now let US bring science to the test of these poetic ex- pressions and tell me with what justice it is to be con- demned if its conclusions should cast doubt upon the material reality of a great world’s altar stairs literally sloping through darkness up to God. Is its offense magni- fied when it is unable to describe minutely the particular 20 Geology and Revelation kind of material dust and chaff that can be grasped by lame hands of faith? And would it be worse still if it should declare itself unable to conceive of lame hands of faith as material realities at all? On the other hand, will science reject Tennyson as utterly absurd and unworthy of regard by mature minds because it is unable to apply its measuring rod to the altar stairs, to use its scalpel on the hands of faith, or tumble the dust and chaff referred to into its balance or half bushel! What nonsense it would be for some great souled idealist to insist on setting up Tennyson’s words as a test of accuracy for any scientific conclusion 1 What worse than nonsense if some small mind- ed scientist should insist that the true test of the quality of Tennyson’s work is to be found in a critical comparison of his expressions with the demonstrated facts of material science! Tennyson, in the passage quoted, is not guilty of writing nonsense, but on the contrary expresses forcibly and with the utmost fidelity to truth, though in terms of poetic imagery, an experience common probably to every human soul. He describes a real verity — if you will par- don the seeming tautology — and enlightened science is ready to acknowledge, with uncovered head and bending reverence, the existence of verities lying entirely outside the domain of physical phenomena. Science and the most reverent biblical criticism may now harmonize all apparent causes of controversy by recogniz- ing the obvious fact that the Bible nowhere assumes to teach science. To my mind it has no more to say on the subject of Geology than on navigation, mining engineering or the recent applications of electricity. With as much Geology and Revelation 21 propriety we might search its pages for a correct solution of the solar parallax as for a solution of any of the vexed problems of Geology or Biology. A quotation from a work on Genesis by the Rev. Dr. Dods, a quotation which I copy from Professor Henry Drummond, may be offered here in support of the assertion that, among the most eminent biblical scholars, the assumption that the first chapters of Genesis contain a literal record of historic facts is no longer entertained. I am aware that some of the positions of Dr. Dods created more or less disturbance among his clerical brethren, but the fact of his later election to a professorship of Theology implies that among the leaders of what was but recently the Free Church of Scotland, his views relating to science and the Bible were not regarded as seriously objectionable. Dr. Dods, writing of Genesis, says: — ^‘The narrative is not careful to follow the actual order in which life appeared; it affirms, e. g., that fruit trees existed before the sun was made; science can tell us of no such vegetation. It tells us that birds were created on the fifth day, the reptiles on the sixth. Nature herself tells a different tale and assures us that creeping things appeared before the flying fowl. But the most convincing proof of the regardlessness of scientific accuracy shown by this writer is found in the fact that in the second chapter he gives a different account from that which he has given in the first, and an account irreconcilable with physical facts. * * * * He represents the creation of man as preceding the creation of the lower animals — an order which both the first chapter and physical science assure us was not the actual order observed. * * * * it seems 22 Geology and Revelation to me, therefore, a mistaken and dangerous attempt which is often made to reconcile the account of physical facts given here with that given in Nature herself. These ac- counts disagree in the date or distance from the present time to which the work of creation is assigned, in the length of time which the preparation of the world for man is said to have occupied, and in the order in which life is introduced into the world.’’ Let me quote again, this time from Professor Drum- mond; — “ There is a ‘ science of theology ’. * * * It has exponents in Britain and Germany as well equipped in learning, in sobriety, in balance of mind, and in the pos- session of the scientific spirit, as the best of the interpre- ters of Nature. * * * To theological science the whole underlying theory of the reconcilers is as exploded as Bathybius. » * * Scientific theology no more pledges itself to-day to the interpretations of the Bible of a thou- sand years ago than does science to the interpretations of Nature in the time of Pythagoras. Nature is the same to- day as in the time of Pythagoras, and the Bible is the same to-day as a thousand years ago. But the Pythagorean interpretation of Nature is no more impossible to the mod- ern mind than are many ancient interpretations — those of Genesis among others — to the scientific theologian.” Another British writer on Genesis defines the position of modern theology in these clear terms: — “There is a principle frequently insisted on, scarcely denied by any, yet recognized with sufficient clearness by few of the advo- cates of revelation, which, if fully and practically recog- nized, would have saved themselves much perplexity and Geology and Revelation 23 vexation, and the cause they have at heart the disgrace with which it has been covered by the futile attempts that have been made, through provisional and shifting inter- pretations, to reconcile the Mosaic Genesis with the rapidly advancing strides of physical science. The principle re- ferred to is this: matters which are discernible by human reason, and the means of investigation which God has put within the reach of man’s faculties, are not the proper subjects of Divine revelation; and matters which do not concern morals, or bear on man’s spiritual relations toward God, are not within the province of revealed religion. ’ ’ There then is the safe position, the position to which we all must come. What man may discover by the exercise of his own faculties has not been revealed. Problems of physical science, which in no way concern morals or man’s spiritual relations to God, have no necessary place in the sacred Word. The one lesson to be learned from the poetic story of creation as given in Genesis, is the Divine agency in and through it all, and it is a matter of indifference as to the order, the time, or the manner in which the various creative acts took place. Had the order, time and manner of creation been given with the utmost accuracy of scien- tific detail, they would not have been understood by a single individual for thousands of years. Indeed the time may never come when such a scientific narrative could have any significance to the majority of human kind. Furthermore, such a narrative, however full and accurate in scientific detail, could never affect for weal or woe a single human soul. It is not a fundamental necessity to man’s spiritual welfare that he should be able to gauge the heavens or 24 Geology and Revelation know how to compute the weight of the earth, but it is important that he should start from the premise that ^‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The bygone eternity involved in the long reaches of geologic time may, or may not, fall within the scope of man’s intel- lectual attainments, knowledge of that kind is wholly im- material from the standpoint of the purpose for which the Bible was written, but ignorance of the fact that he is born heir to an eternity which embraces all the future, would be' attended with serious consequences to his spiritual inter- ests. He need not know that those curious organic remains in the Harding quarry near Canon City, Colorado, indi- cate the presence of primitive fishes as early as the Ordo- vician; it is immaterial whether or not scorpions were introduced as early as the Silurian; his hopes of eternity are in no way affected by ignorance of the fact that no workable coal seams were formed before the Carboniferous ; but he should know definitely and positively that ‘^When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, ^ * that we might receive the adoption of sons.” It was not necessary to reveal the technical distinctions between true fowls that fly in the open firmament of heaven, and bats or pterodactyls ; but the distinctions between right and wrong, between virtue and vice, between the broad minded charity which leads you to regard your neighbor as your- self and narrow selfishness, between holiness and unright- eousness, between purity and moral uncleanness, are all of fundamental importance. On these points, and on all others which concern religious and spiritual well being, the Bible happily leaves us in no uncertainty. But on this Geology and Revelation 25 part of the subject it would be unpardonable presumption for me to speak. Its full elaboration and discussion may well be left to men who, by special study and insight into the meaning and purpose of the sacred Word, have ac- quired the right to speak with some degree of authority. I venture, however, to trespass far enough to call atten- tion to the fact that the religion of the Bible is the only religion that recognizes man’s true relation to other created things. That man is the latest and the crowning effort of creation is one thing at least in which Geology and the first of Genesis agree. Unenlightened man is now, and always has been, disposed to exalt created things as objects of worship. There are, as you know, sacred crocodiles and sacred beetles and sacred cats and sacred monkeys. The sun, moon and stars are worshipped. Lacking anything better, a block of wood fantastically carved, daubed with gay colors or tricked out in fantastic garments, will answer, as Carlyle says, as a Mumbo Jumbo ‘‘which he can thence- forth pray to with upturned, awe-struck eye, not without hope.” The Bible lifts man out of such degrading wor- ship, assures him of his own exalted position at the head of the material creation, and points him to the one spiritual maker and ruler and all-provident Father of the Universe. Read the ecstatic outburst in the eighth Psalm: “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained ; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands ; 26 Geology and Revelation thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” Now compare this view of the dignity of man and his relation to the universe with the religions which not only sanction, but enforce, the pamper- ing of sacred beasts of various kinds, even at the expense of precious human lives. None of the beasts of the field, nor the fowls of the air, nor creatures that pass through the paths of the seas, are worthy of human worship, for man is infinitely exalted above them all. The starry heav- ens have excited awe in the minds of earth’s noblest and most gifted men, as well as in the minds of nature’s un- taught children everywhere; but even the moon and the stars, with all their nightly effulgence and beauty and in- comprehensible mystery, are undeserving of human adora- tion. Thou hast ordained them. They are but created, material things after all, and man outranks moon and stars. Neither are the angels worthy, for they too are created, and man is made only a little lower than they. Thus it is that the Bible everywhere assigns to man his true place in nature and points his adoring eyes away beyond nature and away beyond all created things to the one living and true God, the Creator and Father of all. On all hands it must be conceded that the Bible has a grand purpose, and I think it will also be conceded that that purpose is not to teach science. To my mind one of the strong arguments in favor of the divine authorship of the book, is the fact that it has been able to outlive all the humiliation and reproach that have been brought upon the Geology and Revelation 27 cause it represents through the false claims made in its behalf by over-zealous and unwise friends. The truths it teaches are the necessary, but otherwise undiscoverable truths respecting the relations of man to nature, of man to man, and of man to God. You may rest assured of two things. Science will never disturb in the slightest degree a single one of the great moral, religious and spiritual truths taught by the Bible, nor on the other hand can the Bible ever become a standard by which to judge of the ac- curacy of a single scientific conclusion. Give to science, then, the largest possible liberty, and cling to your Bible with simple, honest faith that no discoveries in the realm of material things can repeal one of its authoritative enact- ments relating to human duty. No scientific theory or demonstration can ever release man from the obligation to love God with all his might, mind and strength, and his neighbor as himself. KCONOMY ADVIBTISING CO. PRINTERS AND BINDERS IOWA CITY, IOWA UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 3 0112 027287546