Recommended Reading: The Great Turning Point
Most of the books recommended in Spiritual Perspectives are by members of the churches of Christ, but the subject of this book contains information of a special nature that is not common knowledge, nor is it likely to be found on the Internet. This material is taken from a doctoral thesis by Terry Mortenson, whom this reviewer was fortunate enough to hear during a visit to the Creation Museum in 2010. It appears to be free of doctrinal bias.
The complete title of this work is, The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology\may be already saying
The complete title of this work is, The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin. Some may be already saying, "That doesn't sound like something that interests me," which is probably correct, but one should at least be aware of the information because of its historical and resource value. The book itself is only 272 pages, but these are 8½ by 11 inch pages and not those that are usually half that size. There is a lot to wade through, and it is both interesting and a bit tedious at the same time. It was first published in 2004. The current cost is only $16.00.
When the author speaks of the church, he is using the term in the denominational sense of "Christians" in any denomination. Of course, we reject that definition and prefer to stick with those that the Scriptures provide, but such is the way he uses it throughout his book.
As most people know, Darwin published his book, On The Origin of Species, in 1859. What many may not know is that the idea of evolution and its attendant teachings were not new when he published it. Mortenson's book pays attention to what occurred prior to that time—in the first half of the 19th century. It was during this time that "the church" failed to speak up in the way it should have. In fact, this work is instructive in that it demonstrates the appropriate and necessary time to combat error.
Mortenson begins with a quotation from geologist H. H. Read, which deserves careful consideration:
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 (11).
This book discusses the "Genesis-geology debate" that occurred from the 1800s to the 1850s. During this time, Charles Lyell popularized James Hutton's theory of uniformitarianism, which had been developed and established in the latter half of the 18th century. On the other side of the issue were those who believed that the Bible was correct and that the global flood produced most of the fossils in various rock formations. Those who upheld the Biblical view were referred to as "scriptural geologists," "Mosaic geologists," and sometimes "biblical literalists" (11).
The Scriptural geologists took issue with the "catasrophist theory" which lies between their own position and that of the uniformitarians (a compromise, in other words). The Scriptural geologists also opposed "the gap theory" (which some such as John Clayton still espouse), the day-age theory (which some brethren today have no problem with), the tranquil flood theory (which created no lasting geological effects [Had they ever read Genesis 7:11?]), the local flood theory, and the myth theory (Genesis 1-11 is not historically accurate) (12). (See page 34 for complete definitions.)
The Scriptural geologists were correct in rejecting these theories, along with uniformitarianism, because they are false. No evidence proves those theories because the evidence itself is subject to interpretation, as in the quote above by Read. No one who believes Genesis 1-11 to be historically accurate accepts them.
The Slanderers
What happened, in the final analysis, to the scriptural geologists is what we see happening today to public figures that disagree with "politically correct" thinkers. They are slurred, belittled, and slandered—not because of any moral or intellectual defect in them—but because many do not like what they are saying. For example, a public figure that is, perhaps, most maligned these days, carrying very high negatives, is Sarah Palin. When she recently mentioned that Paul Revere warned the British that Americans would staunchly resist them, the liberal elite jumped all over her for her stupidity. If they had done any fact-checking (something "journalists" used to do), they might have realized she described what happened accurately. In this instance, all one would have had to do would have been to check the Wikipedia on Paul Revere. Below is a portion of that material:
Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army's movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there.
Thus, Paul Revere warned the British what would happen to them if they persisted in threatening the Colonists. On a separate occasion, a caller phoned the Rush Limbaugh program to berate Sarah Palin. When the host asked what his complaint was, he cited her stupidity when she said, "I can see Russia from my back porch." When the host tried to inform him that she did not say those words, he responded, "My , Rush. Are you going to deny that? Come on." He likely never learned that the line he attributed to Palin was from a skit on Saturday Night Live, in which Tina Fey (who impersonates Palin), uttered those words.
The point is that, when some do not like what another person stands for, they do not bother with facts. Any slander that comes along is immediately credible. (The inclusion of this material in no way suggests that Sarah Palin should run for President, or that if she does, anyone should vote for her. The purpose is to show how people are unfairly dealt with.) Today, when those who believe the Bible try to express a view, they are often mocked as "Bible Thumpers."
As early as 1827, Charles Lyell said of the scriptural geologists that they were "wholly destitute of geological knowledge" and furthermore ignorant of "the elements of any one branch of natural history which bears on the science" (12). When Mortenson discusses the scriptural geologists later on, he provides their qualifications and their popularity—despite all of the acceptable "scientists" maligning of them. Lyell was also inaccurate when he said of these men that "they endeavor to point out the accordance of the Mosaic history with phenomena they have never studied" and that "every page of their writings proves their consummate incompetence" (12).
Even Stephen Jay Gould was still piling on in 1975, saying of those men:
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 quasi-scientific theologians (13).
This statement is not factual, as the evidence from later chapters shows. A "historian" writing of that era said the scriptural geologists believed geology was "not a subject of lawful inquiry," "a dark art," "dangerous and disreputable" (13). Those men believed no such thing; this is nothing but a malicious attempt to discredit men who were seeking the truth. The work of one of the scriptural geologists was called "prejudiced rubbish" (13), and together they were called "men of the lunatic fringe" (14).
The author of The Great Turning Point rightly states:
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 (15).
After the introduction, the author moves on to discuss the conflict between the Catholic Church and Galileo, Baconian Science, the Enlightenment, and the Neptunist-Volcanist Debate (which dealt with whether water or fire was the most important agent in causing geological changes). Then comes the section, "Reinterpretations of Genesis." As strange as it may seem, English "churchmen" were at the heart of the problem. Thomas Chalmers, "one of the leading Scottish evangelists," gave in to the "old earth" concept (33-35), and several other "clergymen" began adopting the various theories that allowed for a longer period of time (day-age, gap, myth, etc.). How sad it is when those who are supposed to believe the Bible are at the forefront of betraying it! What happened with many of the churchmen here is precisely the reason that denominationalism cannot be trusted.
They have departed from the truth by their very existence. Jesus authorized no sect whatsoever. Religious denominations do not exist by the authority of Christ. Hence, if they have already departed from the Scriptures in their very formation, how can they be expected to stand for the truth on anything? Just in the last 60 years, many of them have given up divorce for only sexual immorality and now accept any reason. They have not insisted on sobriety for decades. In fact, one church near Orlando is offering pina coladas to its worshipers. Few, if any, are fighting against fornication, and most have or are ready to give up the fight against homosexuality. How many have stood against abortion this past 40 years? Once people disrespect the truth of the Bible, the door is open for eventual complete departure, which is what has occurred.
The Scriptural Geologists
After a few more preliminaries, Mortenson provides portraits of seven geologists that most of us have never heard of. Below is a brief mention of each one, and their names deserve to be remembered.
Granville Penn: He was the grandson of William Penn (57). Although he was not a geologist, he was well read and documented what he wrote with references from works recently published (58). In harmony with Read's earlier quote, Mortenson offers the following assessment: "When Penn disagreed with these respected geologists, it was over the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves…" (61).
George Bugg: He "admitted that he had little firsthand knowledge of geological phenomena", but he was well read and studied on the topic (82). Bugg considered the idea that God had one or more previous creations a poor reflection on Deity. He said:
Where is the philosophy, the wisdom, yea, the common sense in building, destroying, and rebuilding the mansion many times over, before its Lord is made to occupy it? (86).
Andrew Ure: He became "a member of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons" in 1803 (99). Michael Faraday said that "not one of Ure's chemical analyses was ever impugned" (100). He wrote 53 journal articles and several books, including A Dictionary of Chemistry and A New System of Geology, which was 621 pages (101). This book received a favorable review from The Journal of Science, Literature and Art; the reviewer said: "On the whole we regard this new system of geology, as one of the most valuable accessions lately made to the scientific knowledge of our country" (110). However, Adam Sedgwick, a Cambridge geologist (and "clergyman") could not find even one good thing about the book to commend it. Although some criticisms were valid, some of the alleged errors in the book actually were not errors at all; Sedgwick had an obvious bias against Ure's theology (111-12).
George Fairholme: He "engaged in much geological and geographical fieldwork" (118). His Geology of Scripture (1833) set forth a refutation of Lyell's uniformitarian theory, and Mosaic Deluge (1837) showed, among other things, that the commencement of water flow (such as in the Niagara River) was less than 10,000 years old (128-29).
John Murray: He published 28 books and wrote more than 60 articles which were published in scientific journals (132). Nearly 20 of his inventions became used, one of which was the miner's safety lamp (135). He "made observations and chemical experiments" several hundred feet down inside Mt. Vesuvius and other volcanic craters. In the waters of the Dead Sea he discovered "several substances that had gone unnoticed by other investigators" (137). The charge that men like these were unscientific is ludicrous.
Murray combated the day-age theory: 1) by showing that the Hebrew word yom means a 24-hour day in the context of Genesis 1; 2) by observing that "the Sabbath command of Exodus 10:11 ruled out" long, indefinite periods of time; 3) by noticing that even heathen writers believed in a six-day creation (149). Against the theory that God brought a destruction upon the earth and re-created it, he researched the Hebrew word bara and found that it was in other places translated "adorn, array, set in order." Furthermore, in Genesis 1 the word means creation out of nothing. If it does not mean that there, then Hebrews 11:3 becomes unintelligible (the reader should consider this verse carefully) (149).
George Young: He spent a great deal of time exploring the Yorkshire coast and published 20 geological conclusions based on his research (167-69). Ten years after publishing his book on Scriptural Geology, he commented that critics had a right to complain about his or anyone else's work, adding that
They have no right, on their part, to denounce their opponents as bigots, fanatics, ignorant, and illiberal. It is not by hard names, but by strong arguments, that the cause of truth is to be established (164).
Nothing has changed in the past 200 years; those who fancy themselves as elitists continue to demonize their opponents in the same way.
William Rhind: He was so "unscientific" that, beginning in 1854, he was a lecturer in botany in the medical faculty of Marischal College in Aberdeen (180). His 711-page work, A History of the Vegetable Kingdom was first published in 1841 and went through eight editions by 1877 (181). Rhind bravely dared to state what remains true—that "the whole geological column was not known then to exist in any single location on earth" (186).
In the "conclusions" section, Mortenson discusses the "clergymen" who (to their shame) vociferously opposed the scriptural geologists. Undoubtedly they did not want to appear "unscientific," even though most of these men were scientific in their own right. On page 205 is mentioned the famous polystrate fossil found in a quarry in Scotland. It is difficult to explain how that a tree can exist through a 200-foot thick formation of alternating sandstone and shale. It is interesting to note that some of the geologists who were also "churchmen" were more eager to accept Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism than they were to believe what the Holy Spirit had recorded in Genesis 1-11 (226).
Although 29 or more authors published one or more books or pamphlets defending the integrity of Genesis between 1820 and 1845, the battle was lost to Lyell's theory. Compromising "clergymen" were part of the reason (234); such betrayers are still a thorn in the side of the truth today. By the time of Darwin's book, the scriptural geologists had become an "extinct species" (236). Truth always needs a vigorous defense—in season and out of season—despite the mockery.