Scripture and Geologists -- By: John Byl

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 51:1 (Spring 1989)
Article: Scripture and Geologists
Author: John Byl


Scripture and Geologists

John Byl

1. Introduction

In a recent pair of articles in WTJ under the title “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists,”1 Davis Young discusses the question as to how to relate Scripture and science or, more specifically, Genesis and geology.

He examines in detail two approaches among geologists that have been popular over the last 300 years. The first of these is “literalism,” which insists that the early chapters of Genesis are literal narratives that report a succession of historical events and that scientific reconstructions of cosmic history should not be at variance with the literal interpretation of the biblical text (p. 4). The second approach is that of “concordism,” which—while also treating Genesis 1–11 as historical narrative—has harmonized Genesis with scientific findings “by adopting a variety of figurative, symbolic, or broad interpretations of the text” (p. 4). Young concludes that both these approaches are inadequate and that they should be abandoned for a newer approach that does not try to answer technical scientific questions with biblical data: “I suggest that we will be on the right track if we stop treating Genesis 1 and the flood story as scientific and historical reports” (p. 303).

The purpose of this paper is to examine Young’s analysis of the earlier approaches, to point out a number of difficulties with Young’s proposed solution, and to suggest an alternative that is more in line with the traditional view of Scripture.

2. The Preferred Interpretation of Genesis 1-11

The basic thesis of Young’s article is that, given the wide range of interpretation by Christian geologists of the details of the biblical account of creation and the flood, we must conclude that the biblical text doesn’t give us information of a scientific nature. In his historical sketch Young describes

various attempts to explain such events as the flood and its geological consequences in terms of rational secondary causes. As he shows, numerous mechanisms have been proposed. These have involved many ingenious interpretations of such details as the “deep” (Gen 1:2), the “waters above the firmament” (Gen 1:7), and the “fountains of the deep” (Gen 7:11).

I concur with Young’s conclusion that the Bible does not provide us with a scientifically verifiable mechanism for the flood. Nor does it...

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