Basic HTML Version
149
theory of the geologists, and a theory based on unwarranted generalizations. We would call
attention to the following considerations: (1) The science of geology is not only young, but it is
still in bondage to speculative thought. It cannot be considered as an inductive science, since it
is largely the fruit of a priori or deductive reasoning. Spencer called it “Illogical Geology” and
ridiculed its methods, and Huxley spoke of its grand hypotheses as “not proven and not
provable.”[Price, The Fundamentals of Geology, pp. 29, 32.] (2) Up to the present time it has
done little more than scratch the surface of the earth, and that in a very limited number of
places. As a result its conclusions are often mere generalizations, based on insufficient data.
Facts observed in some places are contradicted by those found in others. (3) Even if it had
explored large areas in all parts of the globe, it could only increase our knowledge of the
present condition of the earth, but would never be able to give us perfectly reliable information
respecting its past history. You cannot write the history of a nation on the basis of the facts
observed in its present constitution and life. (4) Geologists once proceeded on the assumption
that the strata of rocks were found in the same order all over the globe; and that by estimating
the length of time required by the formation of each it could determine the age of the earth.
But (a) it was found that the order of the rocks differs in various localities; (b) the experiments
made to determine the time required for the formation of the different strata, led to widely
different results; and (c) the uniformitarian theory of Lyell, that the physical and chemical
action of today are safe guides in estimating those of all previous times, was found to be
unreliable.[Cf. More, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 148.] (5) When the attempt to determine the
age of the various strata or rocks by their mineral and mechanical make-up failed, geologists
began to make the fossils the determining factor. Palaeontology became the really important
subject, and under the influence of the uniformitarian principle of Lyell developed into one of
the important proofs of evolution. It is simply assumed that certain fossils are older than
others; and if the question is asked on what basis the assumption rests, the answer is that they
are found in the older rocks. This is just plain reasoning in a circle. The age of the rocks is
determined by the fossils which they contain, and the age of the fossils by the rocks in which
they are found. But the fossils are not always found in the same order; sometimes the order is
reversed. (6) The order of the fossils as now determined by geology does not correspond to the
order which the narrative of creation leads us to expect, so that even the acceptance of the
geological theory would not serve the purpose of harmonizing Scripture and science.
6. THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
The question naturally
arises in our day, How does the theory of evolution affect the doctrine of creation?
a. The theory of evolution cannot take the place of the doctrine of creation.
Some speak as if
the hypothesis of evolution offered an explanation of the origin of the world; but this is clearly
a mistake, for it does no such thing. Evolution is development, and all development