"Instead of accepting the biblical explanation of the dead creatures buried
in geological strata as being the fossil record of God's judgement by
Noah's flood, theistic evolutionists accept the explanations of secular
scientists that a so-called "geological column" was laid down over millions
of years before man arrived on the scene. Then they try to harmonize this
belief, originated by false prophets among the people, namely, James
Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin, with the Bible by attempting to
fit that slowly formed fossil record into imaginary age-long days or gaps
between the beginning of the creation in Genesis 1:1 and the creation of
Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:27. WHEN ONE REALIZES THAT MOST FOSSILS (OTHER
THAN FOOTPRINTS AND VEGETATION)ARE DEAD CREATURES, the heresy of such belief
becomes obvious reason, for a fundamental doctrine of the Christian Church
teaches that death is the consequence of Adam's sin; therefore, Adam had to
have been created before the fossil record formed."
Focussing on the text in CAPS, I hear this argument all the time but
something really struck me about it in the context of this paragraph. Given
the disdain for things scientific, I asked myself how do these people KNOW
that fossils represent dead creatures? It appears to me the ONLY reason
they can say this is because science tells them that fossils are remains of
formerly living things. But this is as much as admitting that examining the
present can reveal things about the past. They say it is obvious that
fossils represent previous death? Yes, I believe that, by why does the
author of this paragraph believe this given his disbelief in other "plain"
and "obvious" facts.
MY COMMENTS FOLLOW.
Recent historical study of early geology has concluded that it was mainly
the diluvialists (ie, those who believe in a major biblical flood) who were
prepared to believe that fossils are really the remains of living creatures
and not simply "freaks of nature" or Platonic forms not endowed with the
"breath of life." An excellent example is the work of the Swiss naturalist
Johann Jacob Scheuchzer, author of many important works including
"Complaints and Claims of the Fishes" (1708). This curious book takes the
form of a trial of mankind by the fossil fish, who speak up to defend their
organic origin against men who deny it because they want to forget about the
flood! Similar views, less creatively expressed, are found in Woodward and
other early geologists.
I'm not arguing here that diluvialists were the only people who accepted the
organic origin of fossils, or that this was the only important argument in
favor of that theory. But I am trying to say that a theological commitment
to the flood as a worldwide catastrophe DID lead the diluvialists to
advocate the organic origin of fossils before that view was generally
accepted. The scientists, it would seem, learned to think of fossils as
organic partly (not solely) because the diluvialists made the case for it,
motivated by theological beliefs. So Joel's comments would seem to put the
horse before the cart.
Ted Davis