This first expression of the Bible is the basis of modern science.
partisans declare that the early Fathers of the Church were not opposed to it, since they likewise supposed an indefinite period between the Creation and the first regular arrangement. (They quoteS.Greg.Naz.Orat.11,t.l,p.51; S. Basil, Hezaem., homil. 11, p. 23; St. Caesarius, Dialog. 1, Origen, Periarch, b.iv.,e.xvi.,&c.) From the preceding remarks it follows:—
1. That there are two geological systems in existence, and that they assemble all modern scholars under their respective standards. The first system places the interior revolutions of the globe between the first and third verses of Genesis, so that they should have occurred before the appearance of man on the earth, and before the arrangement of our planet to serve him as a habitation. The partisans of this system make no difficulty in admitting the Mosiac days as periods of twenty-four hours.
The second system places the periods between the close of the third verse of Genesis and the sixth day of the Creation, such as it is related by Moses.
In this system, the Mosaic days are not revolutions of twenty-four hours, but much longer periods of time, even of an indefinite duration.
2. That geologists do not agree on one of the fundamental points of their science.
3.That the most approved theories of the present
day are not at all opposed to the Mosaic account.
4. That these theories are rather by the side, than in the sense, of Genesis.
It is, therefore, not for the pleasure of breaking a lance with them, that I venture to make a few observations on the scientific value of the two systems.
To make geology a more Christian, and, consequently, a more solid and useful science, is the object of the doubts which, with all respect, I am about to suggest.
First doubt: Is it quite certain that the great diversified irregularities found in the interior arrangement of our globe, are the effect of revolutions successively accomplished during a long course of ages?
You admit the fact of Creation, Creation is a miracle of the first order. Now, it is said that God separated the waters from the land, previously blended together. How can it be proved that, under the action of this omnipotent word, the land did not instantaneously become dry and solid; that it did not receive in the twinkling of an eye both its interior and exterior configuration ; that the rocks, the granites, the caverns, the mountains, did not assume, on the very moment, the situation and the dimensions required of them by the law of gravity, or by the sudden disintegration of the elements of terrestrial matter? You admit the instantaneous creation of light, such as it is at present; is it more difficult to admit the instantaneous configuration of our planet?
Second doubt: Is it quite certain that those revolutions took place at the epoch assigned them, that is, before ordering the Mosaic Creation. God acts outwardly only to reveal his glory. Every revelation supposes a. being capable of understanding it. A rational being is alone capable of acquiring this knowledge. Outside of God, we know of only two classes of intelligent beings: angel sand men.
There can be no question about man, since, according to both systems, he did not exist. The angels remain.
Where is the proof that they existed previously to the revolutions in question? Even supposing their pre existence. where is the proof that the knowledge of the revolutions of our planet
By these luminous words it ought to be delivered from those absurd cosmologies, from which pagan antiquity could never free itself, and which, condemning the human mind to grope eternally in the dark, have chained it down in the pitiable condition that every one sees. The impious science of the last century has plunged into chaos,
was either necessary or useful, to make them acquainted with the existence and the perfections of God ?
Third doubt: Is it quite certain that the deluge alone is insufficient to explain the soloical revolutions of our globe? The universality of the deluge, denied be
philosophers of the last century, is today acknowledged by all geologists. They merely contend that this dreadful cataclysm was only felt on the surface of our planet, and that the interior convulsions of the globe are due to other causes.
But who has informed man of the precise measure which the evening element observed ,and which has caused such terrible effects? And then,
can any one speak of the interior of the globe, when science hardly knows its surface.
Who has said to our savants:”This phenomenon is due to t he deluge; that he no menon had nothing to do wit hit?" Do not such distinctions appear foued lesson solid reasoning than on the apprehension of a miracle, or rather on the dread of the extent of the action of a miracle? Having admitted the existence of convulsions in the bowels of the earth, they cannot explain them, either by the historical fact of the deluge, or by the historical fact of the Creation. They prefer to have recourse to gigantic revolutions, of which no one can explain the duration, the motive, or the end—whose epoch is unknown, and
whose occurrence there is nothing whatever to justify.
Fourth doubt: If the deluge is insufficient to account for all geological revolutions, would not the curse, with which the earth was struck at the fall of man, qfl’ordsome explana tim of them? Man, in his fall, drew with him the whole Creation, which had been previously subject to his empire. The earth was specially cursed: maledz'ctaterra. Who can measure the extent of this malediction? Who can explain its nature or effects?
When, during the days of Creation, God told the sea to enter its bed, that wall of command, to us so gentle, was like a fearful thunder-clap, which drove L‘uo waters tumultuously into their profound abysses; we may hence infer what terrible effects must have followed the awful word of anathema! Who will dare maintain that it only affected the surface ,without carrying any perturbation into the depths of our planetP But, once more, why speak of the bowels of the earth, when we know nothing about them?
All that we know, is that the earth underwent instantaneously material change, and instead of bearing flowers and fruits alone, it bore thorns and briars, while a great number of the animals abandoned their allegiance to man, and became his enemies.
Would it be contrary to good sense, to refer to these two historical facts,
viz-: the deluge and the curse, rather than to revolutions more or less hypohetical, the convulsions of which our globe has preserved so faithful a remembrance?
Would it not be to give a rational explanation to phenomena, that have heretofore remained an enigma for science? Here, indeed, is a justification for everything.The ecological convulsions, the destruction of the great creations in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, all have their reasonable explanations.
As for every outward work of God, its reason is the manifestation of the glory of God, that is, of his perfections, especially his justice, his mercy, and his wisdom.
His justice, in destroying certain species of vegetables and animals, whose
because it has rejected the true basis of the edifice. Actual science emerges from darkness in proportion as it becomes Biblical.
Consider, again, what majesty, and, at the same time, what gigantic remains astonish the mind. God was pleased to show us the magnificence of the primitive world, and the majesty of man, who, in his state of innocence, was its pacific monarch; consequently, the utter degradation of man’s fall, and the incomprehensible enormity of sin, which could produce such awful results.
His mercy. Man, in his fall, lost much of his power, and the inferior animals became hostile to him.
If the wonderful species of vegetables and animals, of which our globe contains the remains, had continued to exist, how would man, so greatly enfeebled, have been able to live in the midst of them ? Would they not have perpetually menaced his existence? How would man have been able to defend himself against the mammoths, for example, and other such powerful giants, which had become his enemies? How would he have been able to live in the midst of such vegetables as certain ferns and shave-grass, which attained the height of seventy-two feet? How walk, breathe, cultivate the soil, seek for his nourishment, in a land covered with productions like to these? In destroying these great creations, the magnificent ornaments of a world which had been intended as the abode of innocence, God, therefore, showed his mercy towards fallen man, watched over his days, and rendered habitable his place of exile.
His wisdom.
God, to whom all things are present, beheld that impiety which, in the course of ages, was to plunge into the bowels of the earth ,to shake, if it were possible, the very foundations of faith, by denying the truth of the Mosaic account of man’s early history. Now, by concealing in the interior of the earth itself, as in an inaccessible treasury, the magnificent remains of a world which no longer exists, He preserved incontestable proofs of the truths that are the basis of religion: the original greatness, and the subsequent fall of man, followed by a.universal degradation. How worthy of our admiration is not this wonderful economy! At the very moment when impiety most insolently denies these essential dogma, Almighty God opens his store house, and draws from it arms ,which have been held in reserve for six thousand years, that He may confound his enemies.
Such are, with their consequences favourable to religion, the doubts which I have ventured to propose. In order to depreciate their value persons may say: “Your explanation is not a scientific one.” And what are yours?
Is it indispensable that an explanation should exclude every intervention of Divine science? “Your explanation rests on a direct and sovereign action of the Creator.” True: but what conclusion do you draw from this? Is it that facts do not enter as elements into a scientific explanation? Inthe whole work of the creation, the destruction, and the rearrangement of our planet, is not this the direct action of God, and is it not a fact upon which I rely? Is not the curse of the earth a fact?
Is not the degradation of all creatures, on the fall of man, a fact? Is not the universal deluge a fact? For two miracles, which I admit on good proofs, your two geological systems are compelled to admit twenty, without any proofs.
Are not those successive creations, during a long lapse of ages, so many miracles?
Are not those violent destructions and those terrible convulsions, which figure as essential elements in yourtheories, so many miracles, and, what is worse , miracles whose very existence or necessity there is not a single solid proof to demonstrate?