Modern Geology and the Bible -- By: Arthur C. Custance

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 096:382 (Apr 1939)
Article: Modern Geology and the Bible
Author: Arthur C. Custance


Modern Geology and the Bible

Arthur Custance

[Editor’s Note: Appended to the manuscript of this article were about fifty source citations which have been omitted for lack of space. The names of the authors appear in the text.]

The purpose of the paper is to show first, that Modern Geology is anything but an exact science, a fact hardly to be concluded from school text books, and secondly that what is established beyond reasonable doubt need not in any way be considered as conflicting with a traditional and conservative view of the Holy Scripture.

One cannot ignore the studied manner in which modern teachers, and professors, and even more, popular writers such as Huxley, Shaw, and Wells array the evidence of geology against the truth of the Biblical Revelation as though it were expressly designed for that very purpose. And since it is fatal to underrate the strength of the position of one’s adversary, we cannot do better than to examine briefly the fundamental principles which underlie the study of geology today, although the diversity of opinion which maintains in this field of enquiry is bewildering to the casual enquirer. And if agreement is any mark of truth and if a harmony of conclusions generally points to the discovery of what is sought, then we may form our own conclusions from the following facts which are drawn from recent sources, and are in no way the beliefs of insignificant scientists, but of the leading figures of the past decade.

I suppose the first point in which we might expect to find some general agreement would be in the matter of the approximate age of the earth. There are many ways of

determining with comparative accuracy minimum and maximum time periods in which to place the age of a solid globe. While the evolutionists claim millions of years for the accomplishment of the necessary transmutations of species if their theory is true, so many millions of years, in fact, that the physicist is ignored, the latter demonstrates that the earth cannot be “old” in the geological sense. While Prof. Newman asks One Thousand Million Years, Prof. Russell of Princeton, asks for Eight Thousand Million Years. The Department of Geology in the University of Toronto suggests at least Three Thousand Millions. But Lord Kelvin, one of the great British scientists of a generation ago, almost demoralized evolutionists by his studies regarding the possible age of the sun. The sun gives out enormous quantities of heat, and the main agency of the production of heat was figured by Kelvin to be the contraction of the sun, a fact which Sir James Jeans today admits. He determined that, with this as the source of heat, the sun could not possibly be older than from t...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()