by Kenneth L. Foster
The strategies and fallacies used by creationists who attempt to disprove evolution and other scientific discoveries are nothing new, and there is a repeated pattern to this denial as evidenced by history. In this paper I will explore the stages of this circular reasoning, and I will use historical examples to show how theology resorts to the same tactics when faced with a dilemma created by new scientific discoveries that refute existing religious dogma.
As presented in his book A History Of The Warfare Of Science With Theology In Christendom, author Andrew Dickson White defines the three stages of reaction by theology to scientific theories which conflict with religious doctrine: attack and condemnation using “scriptural text”; challenge and suppression of the new fact by using some “great doctrine in theology”; and, finally, an attempt at compromise by aligning religious doctrine with scientific fact through some far-fetched wording or interpretation of religious texts (218).
Early attempts to date the age of the earth by Archbishop Ussher and various Christian theologians using biblical accounts and the genealogy therein seems to have been finally settled in the seventeenth century, when a consensus arrived at a figure of approximately 6,000 years. We learn from White that also in the seventeenth century, Dr. John Lightfoot claimed that he uncovered enough specifics in biblical text to ascertain the time of creation as October 23, 4004 B.C… at exactly nine o’clock in the morning (9).
Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist who established the creationist organization Answers in Genesis (AiG) is an example of the modern-day creationists who, evidently, still ascribe to seventeenth-century reasoning. AiG even cites Ussher among authorities on its website (Hodge Web). In an attack upon fossil evidence and radiocarbon dating which indicates that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, one of the AiG website authors, Bodie Hodge, uses the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis to calculate the time from Adam to Abraham to be 2,000 years, and then speculates that Abraham must have lived around 2,000 BC (Hodge Web). According to him this does, indeed, make the world about 6,000 years old – inline with Ussher’s archaic estimate (Web). His is careful to add the five days of creation as the first figure but then indicates that this was “negligible” (Web).
Hodge then uses several fallacious arguments to explain away radiometric dating which indicates that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. In one of these straw man arguments, he asserts a complete untruth by saying: “But there is growing scientific evidence that radiometric dating methods are completely unreliable”; and, in what is also a circular argument, he cites as sources, articles on AiG and other creationist websites (Hodge Web). Attempting to reconcile the obvious and admitted conflicting ages and dates in the different interpretations of biblical text (Septuagint versus the Hebrew Masoretic translations), Hodge resorts to this ad hoc excuse:
Several points in the biblical time-line are not straightforward to calculate. They require very careful study of more than one passage. These include exactly how much time the Israelites were in Egypt and what Terah’s age was when Abraham was born. (See Jones’s and Ussher’s books for a detailed discussion of these difficulties) (Hodge Web).
In another claim by AiG based on biblical text, Ham attacks the scientific theory of natural selection which indicates that some animals evolved into carnivores, as evidenced by their physical makeup including fangs and claws. According to him, death did not exist in God’s original creation and all animals were vegetarian. As proof he uses a scripture from Genesis: “Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food (Genesis 1:30)” (Web). Even if we take this “proof” at face value, his first fallacy is the assumption that in providing “green herbs” for food, the Divine was exclusively restricting animals to a vegetarian diet. There is nothing in this quote to indicate this conclusion, and if we really interpret this scripture literally (a common insistence of Ham), it implies that all animals were designed to eat only “green herbs” to the exclusion of other types and colors of vegetables. However, Ham seems to disregard this very obvious meaning.
In the third stage of his denial process, he tries to compromise by offering an even more ludicrous explanation for the obvious physical differences in carnivorous animals and their vegetarian counterparts. This explanation was in response, supposedly, to a child’s question, “Why did God make meat-eating animals?”:
Now, eating all of those plants and vegetables and fruit might not be so easy without a good, sharp knife. And I believe that is why some animals have big, pointed, scary-looking teeth (well, scary in a fallen world)! After all, even some animals with sharp teeth today don’t necessarily eat only meat. For instance, the panda has very sharp teeth and yet for the most part it still pretty much eats bamboo plants. (Ham Web)
Most vegetarian animals (and humans) require sharp implements to eat vegetables and fruits? One can agree that certain vegetarians such as pandas have sharp teeth, which they developed through the process of natural selection in order to eat and digest their primary food source – very tough and durable bamboo. However, if we look at the majority of other vegetarian creatures, teeth, claws, and even eyes are different from animals who hunt and eat living prey.
A more far-fetched explanation, and in what partially sounds like an excerpt from a science fiction movie, fellow creationist John D. Morris offers another ad hoc argument in order to substantiate this common creationist belief. He postulates that it might have been “Lucifer” who engaged in some type of “breeding experiments” to produce animals designed as meat eaters in order to “mock the true Creator/God and usurp His authority” (Morris Web).
Perhaps one of the better and more famous historical examples of this process of attacking scientific fact is the attempt by the Church to refute fossil evidence which indicated that the world was much older than Ussher’s claim of 6,000 years. It was within two hundred years after Ussher and Lightfoot’s profound announcements that evidence was uncovered of advanced civilizations in Egypt and Asia – civilizations which had been flourishing for centuries before the time of 4004 B.C. (White 9-10). In addition, the discovery of fossils was an ongoing puzzle and much speculation abounded about the origin of these strange molds. Some of the explanations offered were that these objects might be the rejects of the Divine or some type of future project he had in mind. One of the most popular among the theologians was that God had placed such things in the earth solely for frustrating the “curiosity” of man or for the “trial of human faith” (White 27, 217). It was Leonardo da Vinci who hit upon the true nature of fossils in his understanding of geology in the sixteenth century. However, despite his insight and the development of his theory by others, the theologians continued to claim that fossils were the results of “sports” of God and this was the final pronouncement which served as the official explanation for several hundred years (White 214).
It was the early seventeenth-century resurrection of Da Vinci’s ideas by De Clave, Bitaud, and De Villion in France which caused one of the first major conflicts that ended in a showdown between science and theology (White 214). In a backlash against the heresy proclaimed by these early thinkers, theologians in Paris condemned the scientific explanation of fossils as “unscriptural”, destroyed the papers of the authors, and then banned them from the city (214).
In the middle of the eighteenth century, another concerted effort was made by Baffon (Georges-Louis Leclerc, count de Buffon) to explain simple geological discoveries, and as a result, theologians from the great Sorbonne University mounted the attack that forced him to print a recantation. White reminds us that this was the same type of treatment Galileo suffered a century before (215).
The great dogma was thus reinforced and the Church continued to teach that all material things were created at once by a Divine force. To believe that fossil evidence suggested otherwise was “contrary to Scripture” (White 215). However, as a result of the challenge by science, the explanations of the theologians became not only more pronounced, but also, a little more elaborate and far-fetched. White states:
Again we find theological substitutes for science ripening into phrases more and more hollow – making fossils “sports of Nature” or “mineral concentrations” or “creations of plastic force” or “models” made by the Creator before he had fully decided on the best manner of creating various beings (215).
Even though this last claim appeared to be in contradiction to the doctrine of the perfection and infallibility of God, this was the best explanation offered as theology slowly backed into a philosophical corner.
During this time, Johann Beringer, a professor at the University of Wurzburg, published the treatise Lithographiae Wirceburgensis Specimen Primmum (or as alternately known, The Lying Stones of Johann Bartholomew Adam Beringer). Beringer was a believer in the official dogma of the era and explained fossils as “stones of a peculiar sort, hidden by the Author of Nature for his own pleasure” (White 216). In what White labels a “farce and a tragedy”, Beringer’s students, partly in jest and partly in order to test his fervent faith in religious dogma, played a trick on him by creating fake fossils out of baked clay, which they buried in a place where they knew he was digging (216). The students had crafted various fossils of plants and animals and, as an extra measure, included on some of these counterfeits “Hebrew and Syriac inscriptions, one of them the name of the Almighty” (216). As expected, Beringer was ecstatic upon unearthing the fakes and his renewed faith knew no bounds. This would have ended up as a humorous spoof if not for what ensued. In his newly found inspiration, Beringer quickly finished his book. When the students admitted to the deception in order to spare him further embarrassment, he attributed their efforts to slander. Ignoring further protests, he proceeded to publish his notorious book (216).
After the publication of the book, the stories of the trick played on him by his mischievous students became public, and Beringer’s attempts to convince the academic world of his evidence were in vain. After much scorn and mocking in return, he finally realized his folly and tried to buy up all of the remaining copies of the book; and, after spending a fortune and failing to obtain all of the circulating copies, White claims that Beringer “died of chagrin” (216). As if his shame wasn’t enough in life, the original copyright was subsequently sold by a descendant after his death, and a second edition was published which permanently enshrined the story of his gullibility (216).
It is now commonly accepted that many of the stories in the biblical canon were influenced and taken from other cultures. The story of creation and several other accounts in the book of Genesis actually came from much earlier Chaldean-Babylonian myths (White 2). In the original, older versions, matter and the physical world was created by order of a deity who spoke it into existence – the same method employed by the authors of Genesis who repurposed the earlier story. The story of the great Flood in the old testament of the Christian Bible was also taken from an earlier Assyrian account. In the Assyrian version recorded in cuneiform, there are too many similarities (almost exact) to believe that this duplication of events was mere coincidence. Among the most striking is the building of a great ship in preparation for the flood to save a righteous man and his family; a selection of animals to be preserved; the use of birds after the flood to determine if the water had abated; and, the offering of a sacrifice to the god who had brought about the deluge upon humankind (White 237-238).
After the reformation, even though the Protestant and Catholic churches differed on many points of dogma, one issue upon which they both agreed was “to tolerate no science except such as they considered to be agreeable to the Scriptures” (Draper 217). However, according to White, it was the Protestant churches who were responsible for much of the suppression of science and its adherents. In opposition to geology, it was the Protestant countries who were the most active and the first to condemn the new theories (217). White explains this to be the result of the Catholic church’s earlier experience with Galileo and Copernicus who dealt a blow to its credibility – the reason for a more cautious and stealthy strategy in dealing with science (217). The Church of England was responsible for most of the opposition to geology, and despite several admirable persons, such as Clayton and Mitchell who ascribed to the scientific method, the Church was taken over by a sect of men who practiced their own blend of theology and science (217).
Thomas Burnet not only refused to believe the new theories of Newton but also the new science of geology. In his book titled Sacred Theory of the Earth he refutes the theories of geological formation by claiming that the great deluge had “destroyed the old and created a new world” (White 218). In addition, he theorized that the earth was hollow and contained a “fluid like an egg”; and, in a second work, he proposed that prior to the “Fall” (of man), the earth enjoyed a constant springtime “disturbed by no rain more severe than the falling of the dew” (White 218). In the wake of Burnett there appeared more detractors in the form of William Whiston, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, and Richard Watson – all adhered to the scriptural interpretation and contributed to the suppression of geology during their time (White 220).
The great thinker Voltaire even offered his own explanation in the sixteenth century and his supposition was one of the more ridiculous. He claimed that the fossils of various fishes were actually spoiled remains that were discarded by travelers and that fossils of shells and other items, were objects that were dropped or discarded by “crusaders and pilgrims returning from the Holy Land” (White 229). Voltaire was not the last and a long line of thinkers proposed various and mostly absurd theories. When more and more discoveries were made in caves and other parts of the world, which made it impossible to ignore fossils evidence, the theologians began to seek compromise.
Realizing that they were gradually losing the long protracted battle with science, it was in the account of the biblical Flood that theologians turned to for hope. In order to explain the existence of fossils, some which were discovered on the tops of mountains, it was claimed that they were remains of animals that perished in the great deluge; and the unidentifiable parts, such as a great fossil of a tooth (some of the first evidence of dinosaurs) found in Africa, were the remains of giants recorded in the Old Testament (White 225).
In one of the final victories for science, and in one of the first capitulations by theology, the Dean of Westminster, Dr. Arthur Stanley redeemed England in the end by admitting the fallacies of the early Christian theologians in an eloquent eulogy for Sir Charles Lyell. This memorable speech is recorded by White and the highlights include an acknowledgment of the evasive and divisive tactics of the Church in its attempt to suppress scientific inquiry and method through the use of condemnation and deception. In part, he states:
There were, there are perhaps still, two modes of reconciliation of Scripture and science, which have been each in their day attempted, and each has totally and deservedly failed. One is the endeavor to wrest the words of the Bible from their natural meaning and force it to speak the language of science.
…
It has been followed in later times by the various efforts which have been made to twist the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis into apparent agreement with the last results of geology… (White 247).
However, despite the lessons of history and recorded speeches similar to the above by the Dean of Westminster, modern creationists continue to deny the facts of science and instead, choose to cling to old doctrines that have been discredited long ago by science and discarded by its own proponents. They not only repeat the mistakes of the past, but continue to utilize these same patterns of denial and fallacious logic in order to substantiate literal interpretations of holy books and spiritual texts. In this way, they constantly evade reality. Perhaps it is fitting to end with a quote from White which appears in the preface of his work:
My hope is to aid even if it be but a little in the gradual and healthful dissolving away of this mass of unreason, that the stream of “religion pure and undefiled” may flow on broad and clear, a blessing to humanity (White vi).
White defines himself as a religious man and states that it was never his intention to “injure” Christianity, but to “promote it” through the process of reason (vi). His book was written and originally published in the later part of the nineteenth century and it still serves as a valuable lesson and record of the history of the struggle between theology and science.
Works Cited
Draper, John William. History Of The Conflict Between Religion And Science. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882. Web
https://archive.org/stream/historyofconflic00drap#page/n11/mode/2up
Ham, Ken. “Why Did God Make Meat-eating Animals?” Answers in Genesis. Answers In Genesis, 9 November 2010. Web. 30 May 2014.
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/animals/why-did-god-make-meat-eating-animals/
Hodge, Bodie. “How old is the earth?.” Answers in Genesis. Answers In Genesis, 30 May 2007. Web. 30 May 2014.
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/
Morris, John D.. “If All Animals Were Created As Plant Eaters, Why Do Some Have Sharp Teeth?.” Institute for Creation Research, 1 Jan. 1997. Web. 30 May 2014.
http://www.icr.org/article/if-all-animals-were-created-plant-eaters-why-do-so/.
White, Andrew Dickson. A History Of The Warfare Of Science With Theology In Christendom. New York and London: D. Appleton and Company, 1896. Web.
https://archive.org/stream/historyofwarfare00whituoft#page/n5/mode/2up
Aletheia 