Basic HTML Version
been confiict between "logical"
thinkers, whom we may call early
scientists, and the established priest–
hood, whom we may consider early
theologians.
During the Middle Ages, theolo–
gians in Europe asserted that the
Bible taught that man was created
several thousand years ago, that the
earth was flat, and that it was the
center of the solar system. People
believed that such ideas carne from
the Bi ble.
When Copernicus demonstrated
the revolution of the earth around
the sun, his discovery was bitterly
denounced. When Galileo of Flor–
ence, ltaly finally proved the truth
of the earth's revolution around the
sun via telescope and mathematics,
he was accused of heresy and was
forced to recant.
Such historical events, naturally,
turned sorne scientists of that time
and especially the new breed of sci–
entists of later times against the reli–
gious authority of the age.
Scientists, later, began to study
the earth in a systematic, scientific
manner. As geologists observed the
changing landscapes, fossils, the re–
treat of glaciers, and the cutting of
river channels, many concluded that
the earth must be much older than
the severa! thousand years the theo–
logians said it was.
Meanwhile, theologians did not
agree. Sorne claimed that the "days"
of creation mentioned in Genesis 1
were really long periods of time,
perhaps thousands of years in
length and were not literal days.
Others noted that a time gap of
unknown duration seemed to exist
between the first two verses of Gen–
esis. But early nineteenth century
scientists still viewed the earth in
terms of the biblical record. When
geologists saw evidences on the
earth's surface that seemed to be–
speak tremendous cataclysm and
destruction, they commonly as–
signed the evidence to the Noachian
deluge.
Continued study and scientifi.c
PLAIN TRUTH
June
1973
progress revealed that the early sci–
entists and theologians who ascribed
all geological evidences to the Flood
were wrong. Careful observation
showed that changes in the geology
of the earth, as recorded in the
strata, necessitate longer periods of
time than a mere 6,000 years. Al–
though gcologists recognized that
catastrophes indeed occurred in the
earth's history, they concluded, al–
most to a man, that it was folly to
ascribe most of the earth's geologi–
cal strata to one event, such as
Noah's Flood.
Charles Lyell proposed that natu–
rally operating laws of nature best
explain what occurred ' in the geo–
logic record. This idea set the stage
for Darwin's theory of organic evo–
lution because evolution requires
long periods of time in which to
operate, according to modem laws
of genetics.
From that time, it looked as
though natural science had all but
buried creation and catastrophism,
as taught by the established church.
lt
seemed that only a few die-hard
fundamentalists could still believe
the biblical account of creation.
From One Dogma to Another
Most scientists who believe in the
evolutionary theory, as opposed to
creation by an act of God, make
several philosophical assumptions.
First, they assume, without ade–
quate proof, that medieval "Chris–
tianity" received its ideas about
creation, the solar system, and the
age of the earth from the Bible.
Nothing could be further from the
truth! Most of the cosmological con–
cepts of the Middle Ages, though
cloaked in biblical phraseology ,
carne from ancient Babylon - not
from the Bible.
Writes Dreyer in "Medieval Cos–
mology": "When we turn over the
pages of sorne of these Fathers, we
might imagine that we were reading
the opinions of sorne Babylonian
priest written down sorne thousands
of years before the Christian era;
the ideas are exactly the same, the
only difference being that the old
Babylonian priest had no way of
knowing better" (Munitz,
Theories
of the Universe, From Babylonian
Myth to Modern Science,
pp. 115-
116).
After rejecting the superstitions of
the Middle Ages, which professed to
teach and explain the Bible and
which obstructed scientific progress,
the world passed to the concepts of
the evolutionary theory.
Now, evolutionary theory has re–
placed medieval cosmology and su–
perstition as accepted fact. But Dr.
G.
A.
Kerkut, professor of physi–
ology and biochemistry at the Uni–
versity of Southampton, England,
charges that many of the church's
"worst features are still left em–
bedded in present-day studies." He
observes that the serious student of
the previous centuries, brought up
on a theological diet, quoted author–
ities when he was in doubt. "In–
telligent understanding was the tast
thing required. The undergraduate
of today is justas bad; he is still the
same opinion-swallowing grub....
In this he differs not one bit from
the irrational theology student of
the bygone age who would mumble
his dogma and hurry through his
studies in order to reach the peace
and plenty of the comfortable living
in the world outside. But what is
worse, the present-day s tuden t
c/aims to be different
from his prede–
cessor in that he thinks scientifi.cally
and despises dogma ..."
(Implica–
tions of Evolution,
p.
3).
According to Dr. Kerkut, the
modero student accepts evolution–
ary theory as a fact and "repeats
parrot fashion the views of the cur–
rent Archbishop of Evolution. In
fact he would be behaving like cer–
tain of those religious students he
affects to despise. He would be tak–
ing on faith what he could not in–
tellectually understand ..."
(ibid,
p. 5).
Has the modern world indeed
passed from one superstition to an–
other? Consider: The definition of
25