19th century YECs.

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 01:41:49 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: YEC and loss of faith"

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    >Behalf Of Jonathan Clarke
    >Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 1:35 PM
    >Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today
    >Hi Glenn
    >Belief in a global flood does not make someone a young earther, at
    >least not before
    >the 19th century. We can say they were erroneous in their belief,
    >and point out how
    >this was erroneous in the light of contemporary knowledge
    >(especially after the
    >1840's) or even present day knowledge. But we should not equate
    >belief in global
    >dilluvialism with belief in a young earth.

    I agree and I didn't and haven't said that. I don't even understand how you
    get this from what I wrote. I specifically mentioned that Coooper was old
    earth but global flood in that e-mail. As I said to Michael, I had two
    categories--young-earth and global flood. THere were both in the 19th
    century. I don't know why I must point out AGAIN and it was in your current
    e-mail that I said:

    >> "Currently I have in my personal library books from the following 19th
    >> century young-earth/global flood advocates:"

    That is 2 categories, not one. Repeat, that is 2 categories not 1. I don't
    know how else to express this. If anyone else can do a better job at this,
    please do it for me.

     In the 19th century there was a position which is extremely rare today. The
    old-earth global flood advocate. They believed that human history was
    short, that there was a global flood. This is a variant of the modern
    young-earthers in which youth is applied only to human history but not to
    the earth's history.

    Because claims are made that there were no YECs, I will post quotations
    rather than just merely make the claim that they existed or didn't exist.
    But there were YECs in the 19th century whom we would recognize today.
    Mills is one.

    ”God, however, immediately summoned the murderer into his presence, banished
    him from his father’s family, and sentenced him to become ‘a fugitive and a
    vagabond in the face of the earth;’ But to remove his apprehension of
    immediate death, he gave to the fugitive a sign of protection, and declared
    that ‘whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold.’
            “At this period, the world was one hundred and thirty years old,. . .”
    Abraham Mills, The Ancient Hebrews: with an Introductory Essay concerning
    the World Before the Flood, (New York: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1875), p. 11

    An earth only 130 years old when Cain was slain is clearly a YEC position.
    He was from 1875!

    STrachan is another:

    “If the Mosaic narrative be rejected, then we must believe that the world
    was 3600 years without any written account of its own origin and of the
    supervision exercised, over the affairs of men, by Divine Providence. Now I
    ask the unbeliever himself, whether this be at all probable?” Rev. Alexander
    Strachan, The Antiquity of the Mosaic Narrative, (Burnley: Thomas Sutcliffe,
    c. 1852), p. 57-58

    What an argument, but clearly this guy was YEC!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was 1852.

    Murray was a young-earther:
            “As for the question vexata of systems antecedent to man, with ‘millions of
    ages,’ and ‘creations and destructions innumerable,’ I confess I have strong
    objections to these dogmas. The phenomena of geology do not,in my mind,
    warrant or require such deductions. There are difficulties, no doubt, but to
    fly off from the orbit of induction to the eccentric regions of speculation,
    is not a procedure best calculated to solve them.
    . . .
            “This applies to the existence of the world anterior to the Mosaic
    cosmogony as well as to its eternity.
            “Let it be remembered that there is no absolute CHRONOMETER in geology and
    I very much doubt whether there yet be a fixed relative one among
    fossiliferous rocks, because there are FOSSIL REMAINS COMMON TO THEM ALL;
    and again, fossils innumerable are common both to tertiary and secondary
    strata; a fact that repudiates the assumed distinction. The statics of a
    sound chronology being absent, prudence would require us to be cautious and
    less dogmatical in a science confessedly of intense interest, but
    comparatively young in age. Besides, fossiliferous rocks are local, not
    circumambient.” John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith,
    1840), p. 141-142

    This was 1840.

    And then there is the guy that Miller felt he had to mention:
    Then there was the guy who is quoted in Hugh Miller's Footprints of the
    Creator (Hugh Miller was the writer of the Rambles):

    "SIR—I occasionally observe articles in your neighbour and
    contemporary the 'Witness,' characteristically headed
    'Rambles of a Geologist', wherein the writer with great zeal
    once more 'slays the slain' heresies of the 'vestiges of
    Creation.' This writer (of the 'Rambles,' I mean)
    nevertheless, and at the same time, announces his own tenets
    to be much of the same sort, as applied to mere dead matter,
    that those of the 'Vestiges' are with regard to living
    organisms. He maintains that the world during the last
    million of years, has been of itself rising or developing
    without the interposition of a miracle, from chaos into its
    present stat; and, of course, as it is still, as a world,
    confessedly far below the acme of physical perfection, that
    it must be just now on its passage, self-progressing,
    towards that point, which terminus it may reach in another
    million of years hence.[!!!] The author of the 'Vestiges,'
    as quoted by the author of the 'Rambles,' in the last number
    of the 'Witness,' complains that the latter and his allies
    ware not at all so liberal to him as from their present
    circumstances and position, he had a right to expect. He
    9the author of the 'Vestiges') reminds his opponents that
    they themselves only lately emerged from the antiquated
    scriptural notions that our world was the direct and almost
    immediate construction of the Creator, --as much so, in
    fact, as any of its organized tenants,--and that it was then
    created in a state of physical excellence the highest
    possible, to render it a suitable habitation for those
    tenants, and all this only about six or seven thousand years
    ago, --to the new light of their present physico-Lamarckian
    views. And he asks, and certainly not without reason, why
    should these men, so circumstanced be so anxious to stop him
    in his attempt to move one step farther forward in the very
    direction they themselves have made the last move?—that is,
    in his endeavour to extend their own principles of self-
    development from mere matter to living creatures. Now, Sir,
    I confess myself to be one of those (and possibly you may
    have ore readers similarly constituted) who not only cannot
    see any great difference between merely physical and organic
    development[!!], but who would be inclined to allow the
    latter, absurd as it is, the advantage in point of
    likelihood[!!!]. The author of the 'Rambles,' however, in
    the face of this, assures us that his views of physical
    self-development and long chronology belong to the inductive
    sciences. Now, I could at this stage of his rambles have
    wished very much that, instead of merely saying so, he had
    given his demonstration. Most that those men have written on
    the question at issue I have seen, not fully made up their
    mind on the point.[!!!] Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles'
    could favour us with the inductive process that converted
    himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory,
    is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally
    refute it[?] Till then, I hold to my antiquated tenets, that
    our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created
    about six or seven thousand years ago, and that in a state
    of physical excellence of which we have in our present
    fallen world only the 'vestiges of creation.' I conclude by
    mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty
    years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical
    world during that period, I have never seen cause to change
    it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval
    referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though
    now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet
    expect to see physical development and long chronology
    wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said
    hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]—I am,
    Sir, your most obedient servant.

    *It now appears that, though this letter was inserted in the
    'Scottish Press,' the organ of the United Presbyterians, its
    writer is a Free Churchman. He has since published a good
    many other anti-geological letters, chiefly remarkable for
    their facts, to which, with a self-immolating zeal worthy of
    a better cause, he has attached his name."

    Hugh Miller, Footprints of the Creator, (Edinburgh: William
    P. Nimmo, 1869), p. 256-257
    originally published in 1850

    And this was from 1850. YECs were there all the time. Now if anyone wants
    to dispute this please quote these fellows claiming an old earth, then I
    will have to recant.

    Just for re-iteration, there are 2 categories in my list of books not 1! Can
    I say this in any other way? What exactly is wrong with my communcation
    ability when I have aready stated as clearly as I can that I had 2


    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 17:43:44 EST