Integrity in Modern Society

THE FOUNDATION OF INTEGRITY

That the Bible as the foundation of integrity has come under increasingly violent attack by liberal thinkers both within “the faith” and without goes without saying. Here we will look at the beginning of the devilish ideological attempt to undermine the authenticity of the Holy Scripture as outlined by Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis. He is a historian, geologist and scholar who deals with philosophical and religious thought as it concerns the origin of old-earth geology and Christian compromise in the early 19^th century.

He notes that the Scriptural geologists, those geologists who believe in the six literal days of creation and in the global flood referred to in the book of Genesis, were unable to achieve an international platform to refute the trend toward mythologizing both historical records.

History tells us that Galileo (1564-1642) and Frances Bacon (1561-1626) were early proponents of what was to become the yielding of scripture to the claims of science, so called. Galileo believed that theology and science were separate and that theology should have nothing to do with science. He said, “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”¹ He had once developed the idea that the earth moved around the sun, not the sun around the earth and the Pope, at that time, demanded that Galileo recant of his belief.

Philosopher and politician, Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) believed in a literal six day creation but said,²

“But some of the moderns, however, have indulged in this folly, with such consummate carelessness, as to have endeavoured to found a natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, the book of Job, and other passages of Holy Scripture–‘seeking the dead among the living’. And this folly is the more to be prevented and restrained, because, from the unsound admixture of things divine and human, there arises not merely a fantastic philosophy, but also a heretical religion.”

This was the birthing of the idea of what was called “the two books of God,” or, the study of Scripture and the study of Science. This school of thought found its way into the late 17^th and early 18^th Centuries where there was an almost unanimous acceptance of the fact that God created the world in six literal days. In the latter 18^th Century, however, this began to change with the acceptance of the ideologies of the Naturalist, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), through his writings, the Epochs of Nature (1778). In his book, he wrote that the world was 78,000 years old although it is said that he actually believed it to be a million years old. His theory was that the world was a molten glob and had to cool over a long period of time.

One error builds upon another quite easily in that we are so eager to explore the unknown in our thinking. The Astronomer, Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), who wrote the, Exposition of the System of the Universe (1796), put forth the Nebular Hypothesis. That is, that everything was an enormous gas cloud that cooled over an extended period of time. The hypothesis depended upon ample time for the cooling process and so argued for an old earth.

Then, there was the naturalist, Jean Lamarck (1744-1829), who wrote concerning the Philosophy of Zoology (1809). His theory was that biological evolution is required based upon a critical need: e.g. giraffes needed food which became more and more out of reach and, therefore, stretched their necks higher and higher in order to get food. This resulted in a gene change that was passed from one generation to the next. I would think that one could surmise that a giraffes neck would shorten as food became available at lower levels. Be that as it may.

A professor and mineralogist from Germany, Abraham Werner (1749-1817), had great influence during his life-time as he was a gifted teacher of many students who became geologists. He believed and taught that the oceans grew over time and eventually took over a great amount of land mass over millions of years. He was encouraged, no doubt, by others such as agriculturalist, geologist, James Hutton (1726-1797) who wrote the Theory of the Earth (1795).

He believed that the earths formation was cyclical. He saw no end to this cycle and, therefore, no beginning. Mr. Hutton was considered to be an atheist. Contemporary with him was the comparative anatomist, paleontologist, George Cuvier (1760-1832) who in his paper, the Theory of the Earth (1812), argued that there had been regional and global catastrophes that laid down many layers of fossils. This was a direct attack on the global flood recorded in the Bible.

There was a growing number of secular and religious followers of these new theories that advocated for an old, old earth instead of the young earth account in the Bible. William Smith (1769-1839), a drainage engineer, surveyor and gelologist, joined the ranks and developed a method of using fossils to date rocks. This man from England and Wales is noted as the Father of English Stratigraphy.

Lawyer, geologist, Charles Lyell (1797-1875), wrote that there were no major catastrophes in earths history and that it takes long, long ages in his work, Principles of Geology (3 Vol., 1830-33)

Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis offers the following outline to help track the development of evolutionary thinking:

Buffon: Cooling earth, 78000 years

Laplace: Nebular hypothesis, long ages

Lamarck: Biological evolution, long ages

Werner: Receding ocean, 1 million years

Hutton: Uniformitarian, no beginning

Cuvier: Catastrophist, long ages

Smith: Fossils date rocks, long ages

Lyell: Uniformitarian, long ages

Catastrophist view (e.g., Cuvier, Smith)- multiple catastrophes over a long period of time.

Unformitarian view (e.g. Hutton, Lyell) – no catastrophes, just long period of time (millions of years)

Biblical/Tradition view (Scriptural geologists – Creation account (6000 year old earth)

There was also William Buckland (1784-1856), an Anglican Clergyman and Geology Professor at Oxford in 1815. He attributed minor surface changes to the flood but held that the layers were a result of multiple catastrophes over a long period of time. He was contemporary with Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873), also an Anglican Clergyman and Geology Professor at Cambridge. Because they were clergymen and had such influence they led many to abandon faith in Genesis. Both recanted their position on catastrophism because of the writings of Charles Lyell.

There was also a group of rich businessmen and clergymen who were interested in geology and believed in the old earth theory. They formed the London Geological Society which did much to promote old earth thinking. Among the members of the Society were Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) Presbyterian Minister and Naturalist who believed in the Gap Theory, George Stanley Faber (1773-1854) Anglican Theologian and geologist Hugh Miller (1802-1856) both of whom embraced the Day-Age Theory. Hugh Miller moved from believing in the Gap Theory to the Day-Age Theory. Two more clergymen, John Fleming (1785-1857) Presbyterian Minister and zoologist had a Tranquil Flood, uniformiterian view, and John Pye Smith (1774-1851), a Congregational Theologian who insisted on a Local Creation and Local Flood view, completed the group. Proponents of Liberal Theology during the 19^th century , which taught that Genesis 1-11 was nothing but mythology, included Chalmers, Faber, Fleming and Smith.

During the early 18^th Century, the period of “The Enlightenment,” there was a rapid spread of Deism. This was the idea that God created but then left the creation to run according to the laws of nature. This was a religion of good works. In France, Atheism began to flourish. Philosophical Naturalism, the idea that nature, or matter, is all that exists also vied for attention.

This was the theory that everything can and must be explained by time + chance + the laws of nature working on matter. This was the idea that there was no God at all. During the same period of time, Christianity, which believed that God is actively involved with His creation, unsuccessfully braced itself against these other streams of thought.

We cannot overestimate the influence exercised by Deistic thought, and by the principles of the Humanist world view which the Deists made the criterion of the biblical criticism, on the historical-critical exegesis of the nineteenth century; the consequences extend right down to the present. At that time a series of almost unshakeable presuppositions were decisively shifted in a different direction.³

Unfortunately, the scriptural geologists never formalized into a cohesive group and, therefore, did not have the impact on the world that they might have. They were mostly from London although some were from America. Made up of geologists and clergymen who were extremely well educated and knowledgeable in the field, they were countering these other theories but, for the most part, ignored by most who opposed them.

One of their most outspoken opponents was Charles Lyell who said of them:

They are “wholly destitute of geological knowledge [and unacquainted] with the elements of any on branch of natural history which bears on the science… [They are] incapable of appreciating the force of objections, or of discerning the weight of inductions from numerous physical facts…[instead] they endeavour to point out the accordance of the Mosaic history with phenomena which they have never studied [and] every page of their writings proves their consummate incompetence.”⁴

The most competent scriptural geologist appears to have been the Presbyterian pastor, geologist, George Young (1777-1848). He studied at the University of Edinburough and was the favorite student of John Clayfare. He wrote many books among which are: Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast (1822, 2^nd 3d. 1828), Scriptural Geology (1838) and Appendix to Scriptural Geology (1840). His works were praised by the leading geologists of the day.

The wealthy land owner and naturalist, George Fairholme (1789-1846) was a Scottish Presbyterian who defended the biblical account of the flood in his books, General View of the Geology of Scripture (1833) and, New and Conclusive Physical Demonstrations both of the Fact and Period of the Mosaic Deluge. He held that the world-wide flood was the only event of that kind that has ever occurred upon the earth (1837). Others who agreed with his stance were chemist, physicist, John Murray (1786?)-1851), and the medical doctor, naturalist, William Rhind (1797-1874). Their common complaints against non-biblical views were that the theory’s of their opponents had no biblical basis, that they ignored the record of Genesis, Chapters 6 through 9 and Exodus 20:11.

It is interesting to note that the findings of many true scientists of the 21^st Century are moving back to the evidence rather than pre-suppositions and are beginning to denounce old earth and evolutionary theory, debunking such as wishful and fanciful thinking rather than pure science.

Al Gore’s great effort to avoid global warming (what I call, the “Chicken Little” fear mongering for profit syndrome) is based, not on pure science, but on profiteering via a belief in the old earth/evolutionist theories propagated by many agnostic and atheistic educators. Over 500 scientists have been so disillusioned by the lack of scientific evidence and, in fact, found contradictory evidence concerning the whole global warming issue that they are doing all they can to educate the public. The political machinery world-wide is, however, not easily stopped, let alone slowed. There is simply too much money to be made in the global warming mania. Such travesties could not happen if there were not such a move by fallen man to exclude God and the Word of God from the educational system run by a secular community.

Following is an excerpt from an article posted: September 12, 2007 at 8:15 pm Eastern Time on the internet website of WorldNetDaily.com by Dennis Avery.

More than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting the current man-made global warming scare, according to a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute.

The assessment supports another study on which WND reported recently, one that revealed carbon dioxide levels were largely irrelevant to global warming. Those results prompted Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, to quip, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

The newest analysis was released by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery, who said of the 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the global warming scare, more than 300 have found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age and that such warmings are linked to variations in the sun’s irradiance.

“This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” he said.

The article continues on the website and offers links to many other sources of scientific thought on the subject of humans causing global warming.⁵ It is also of note that Weather Channel Founder, John Coleman, says that, Global Warming, “is the greatest scam in history.” He went on to say:

I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. . . Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming.

Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going.

Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens.

Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.⁶

Mr. Coleman is so sure of his position that he wants to sue Al Gore for what he calls a scam that is misleading and profiting from so many people.

My whole point here is that this kind of fear mongering, one might say, an atheists version of Armageddon, would not be considered plausible by thinking people who understand and believe the scriptural record of creation and the global flood.