Early Christadelphian Views on Science

The Christadelphian community has never officially accepted evolution, but what those who have grown up in the last half-century do not realise is that the community was solidly old-earth creationist for much of its life, with YEC infecting the community from the late 1960s onwards, around the same time the evangelical community in the US also moved from an old-earth stance. Creationism, whether old earth or young earth is of course untenable, but a recognition that YEC and flood geology are foreign impositions is helpful to reorient the community, and let it recognise that what drove acceptance of an old earth was a recognition the science was sound and the evidence overwhelming. The parallels towards accepting evolution are clear.

It is important to realise that the Bible teaches a theology of creation, not a science of creation. This shoudl be apparent given the clear references to pre-scientific thinking in the Bible:

• References to the solid firmament separating waters above from waters below in which are embedded the sun, moon and stars
• References to the kidnesy and heart rather than the brain as the centre of consciousness as seen in Jer 17:10 and Psa 26:2
• Geocentrism, as seen in the references to the sun moving around the fixed earth

Clearly, an accurate understanding of the natural world was not considered theologically important by God. 

As I mentioned at the beginning, the Christadelphian community from its beginning accepted an ancient earth, with the day-age or the gap theory being the commonly-accepted ways of reconciling Genesis with geology. This placed it firmly within the late-19th century Christian mainstream. Some, such as Robert Roberts even believed the flood to be local. It always opposed evolution, but it did recognise the need to change interpretations of Genesis if the evidence demanded it and acknowledged the weight of evidence against literal readings of the creation narratives. This old-earth consensus started changing from the mid-1960s when YEC / flood geology began infecting the community.

John Thomas' views on the age of the Earth are fairly well-known, as any reader of Elpis Israel will realise:

The Mosaic account is not a revelation to the inhabitants of other orbs remote from the earth of the formation of the boundless universe; but to man, as a constituent of the terrestrial system. This will explain why light is said to have been created four days before the sun, moon, and stars. To an observer on the earth this was the order of their appearance; and in relation to him a primary creation, though absolutely pre-existent for millions of ages before the Adamic era. – Elpis Israel (1990, CMPA), 10  

Instead of six thousand, they can avail themselves of sixty thousand; for the scriptures reveal no length of time during which the terrene angels dwelt upon our globe, p 11

Robert Roberts likewise acknowledged the universe was ancient:

You may perceive then that the one is capable of throwing light upon the other. We cannot ascertain the physical history of the earth further back than the fire period from the earth itself: but the starry heavens show us (through the telescope) bodies in various stages of development, and therefore stages through which it is probable the earth has come. The nebulous matter in the milky way is very instructive on this point. – The Christadelphian (1885) 22:406 

It is a demonstrable fact that the earth has existed for ages. To adopt a view that appears to make it begin only 6,000 years ago would create a difficulty. There is no need for adopting such a view. The Genesis account itself admits of these antecedent times and states which science has proved. – The Christadelphian (1895) 32:141

His successor C. C. Walker also had no doubts about the antiquity of the earth, and was certainly open to the then-new science of radiometric dating which put absolute figures to the relative dates:

We can only legitimately glean from the very brief allusion of Moses that at some time anterior to the creation he is about to describe, the world was in existence, but in a waste and void condition by comparison with what it afterwards became under the creative energy of the Almighty. The conclusions of geology, and the undoubted existence of fossil remains of incalculable antiquity are quite in harmony with this view, whereas the view that the earth itself was created some 6,000 years ago is hopelessly irreconcilable with facts. – The Christadelphian (1910) 47:223

The method of estimate based on secular cooling has been entirely destroyed by the discovery of terrestrial radio-activity. Ten years ago the average scientist would have asserted that our habitable globe had not existed for more than a hundred million years. Now it would be hard to find a competent physical specialist who would fix a definite maximum below a thousand million years:—We know that some time in the remote past a crust first formed on our incandescent globe, that water condensed, and earthly time began. But whether this event occurred 100,000,000 years ago or 1,000,000,000 years, or a time longer still ago, we are as yet ignorant.  The Christadelphian (1911) 48:450.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). When was that? No one knows. It does not say. But there is evidence that it was a very long time ago. Some have supposed that the age of the earth is the same as the age of the world Adamic. But it is not so; and the Bible does not say that it is so.… There is no conflict between Genesis rightly interpreted and true science. Genesis says that the earth was originally “waste and void,” and scientific observation says the same. – The Christadelphian (1930) 67:510

The fourth editor of The Christadelphian, L. G. Sargent also regarded an ancient earth as entirely uncontroversial:

“In saying this I do not purport to know what means the Almighty chose to use in the creation nor how long a period of time any part of it may have occupied. I do not regard the statement that “God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”, as giving a literal description of the methods used, nor do I question that some measure of interpretation must be brought to bear in understanding the early chapters of Genesis, any more than Dr. John Thomas did when in Elpis Israel he endeavoured to relate them to the known facts of astronomy and the evidence of the age of the rocks. Few of those who have followed him have believed—any more than Dr. Thomas did himself—that the sun actually came into existence on the fourth day.” – L. G. Sargent “Our Faith and Our Body” The Christadelphian (1966) 103:124 

May I also quote an esteemed predecessor as Editor of The Christadelphian, the late bro. C. C. Walker, who in his book The Word of God (1926) wrote:  “The appearance of herbage naturally preceded that of the creatures which fed upon it. Some of their fossil remains have even contained herbal remains within the wreckage of their gigantic ribs, strongly suggesting some primeval cataclysm in which the great beasts suddenly perished. It will be perceived that this view regards the third day as ages before the creation of man, and the cataclysm in question as of incalculable antiquity. It is very evident from geology that such upheavals have been many in earth’s remote past, but there does not appear to be any evidence at all that some six thousand years ago an existing cosmos was reduced to such a chaos as is described in Gen. 1:2.” – L.G. Sargent ”The Account of Creation” The Christadelphian (1966) 103:459

In quoting three of the first four editors of The Christadelphian as well as the founder of the community in its modern instantiation, I am not trying to make an appeal to a Christadelphian version of ex cathedra pronouncements but rather noting that the fact of an ancient Earth was regarded as entirely uncontroversial in the community in its first century of existence. This view wasn't restricted to the editors of The Christadelphian but freely shared by many writers. Some recognised that the fossil record showed evidence of change through time:

Geology teaches us much; it speaks of a time and creation on this earth when animal life, if not totally, was nearly unknown, and only the lower order of vegetable life covering its face, and this must have existed many thousands of years; and during the whole of that long period, the earth was undergoing wonderful and necessary changes to fit it for a creation of a higher order, and evidently with the creature man in view. - Simons, “Why Man was not at once made Perfect” The Christadelphian (1884), 21:177.

I have not the slightest doubt concerning the truths revealed in the strata of the earth’s crust. There can be no reasonable doubt that long ages have passed away since the matter of the earth first took existences by the fiat of its Almighty Creator.  There can be no reasonable doubt that when the non-fossiliferous rocks were first formed the heat of the earth’s matter was too intense for vegetable and animal life to exist. There can be no reasonable doubt that it was only in a later age that the lower forms of plant and animal life could exist.  And there can be no reasonable doubt that the succeeding ages allowed the creation of still higher and more perfect forms, till we reach the age called the “Tertiary,” and the “Post-pliocene” period of that age, when we are told remains of man are found for the first time. All of this, I say, I do not doubt. The facts of old mother earth’s storehouse are too convincingly inscribed upon her crust to allow me to doubt. – The Christadelphian (1891) 28:416

while another, writing as early as 1865 openly stated that human existence quite likely predated that presupposed by Christianity:

And in the reasonings of the geologist concerning him as opposed by the antagonisms which are imagined between geology and scripture, and of the incapacity of the theologian as the artizan of a school philosophy, to set the other right or aid him in arriving at a definite conclusion regarding the antiquity of man in harmony with the Mosaic record, the geologist is justified from the discovery he has already made as to other animals, in presuming to think man’s origin is of remoter antiquity than is set down in the preambles of confessions of faith. There is nothing in scripture to exclude the opinion, or condemn it—far otherwise;  - W. D. Jardine The Ambassador of the Coming Age (1865) 2:115

When Christadelphian writers did refer to young-earth views, particularly the 'creation with appearance of age' hypothesis, they did not treat those views seriously:

Hence defenders of this view [recent creation] have been obliged to go so far as to contend that in many cases the fossils found in such great profusion in the earth’s strata are not the remains of once living organisms, but that the Creator made them as such during the creation week. Surely no more need be said about this: a hypothesis which needs such defence is foredoomed. The Bible has no call for friends like these. The scoffer may claim good grounds for his attitude, and one can understand why a certain Anglican rector of high standing in science felt compelled to say with regard to this chapter: “Unfortunately I am a geologist.” - W. J. Young “The First Chapter of Genesis” The Christadelphian (1933) 70:119

The closing remark shows the respect to which science was accorded. The same Christadelphian, writing the best part of 100 years ago regarded the scientific evidence as so powerful that a literal reading of Genesis had to be abandoned and any interpretation of the creation narrative done within the framework of an ancient earth:

The position may be summarised by stating that to-day it is doubtful if anyone acquainted with the facts of the earth’s physical and vital history could be found who would admit the possibility of reconciling those facts with the hypothesis of a creation in six literal days of our time. The story of the earth’s creation is writ large by the finger of the Creator in the strata of the earth’s crust, and that story is one involving immense stretches of time. From this conclusion there seems no possible avenue of escape; the only thing to do is to accept the basic facts, and then to enquire as to the possibility of harmonization with the Bible narrative. – ibid, p 119

Around thirty years later, another respected Christadelphian reiterated both the acceptance of an ancient earth, as well as outlined the familiar response that the Bible was not a science text but one in which God's plan for humanity was outlined, a view which as those familiar with Galileo's quip about the Bible telling us how to go to heaven (sic) rather than how the heavens go is ancient:

The controversy between science and religion has provided other examples. It is now fairly generally accepted among us that the Scriptures do not require us to believe that God’s creative processes happened in a week 4,004 years before Christ; the realization that the Bible did not aim at being a science text-book but at revealing God’s redeeming love would have prevented men from defending such a position. It is not that the Scriptures give false answers to any questions but that certain questions may not be the kind of question that they are intended to answer.  H. A. Twelves “Letters to the Editor: Christ and the Bible” The Christadelphian (1962) 99:223

The general acceptance of mainstream scientific views on the age of the earth that characterised the community during its first one hundred years should not be seen as YECs often allege as a 'capitulation' to 'secular science'  but rather a recognition by early Christadelphians that the case for an ancient earth was well-made, and that a wilful denial of that evidence was at best unhelpful

We have given great offence to brethren T. Griffiths, S. Price, and perhaps to one or two others (but we hope and believe very few), by reason of a cover note in the August issue, part of which runs as follows:— 

“Professed respect for Moses and the prophets often degenerates into obscurantism, as when men try to establish from their writings the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. It is so also in this case, as the brother may see if he inherits the Kingdom of God.”
“This case” referred to is the case of a brother who tried to establish from Moses and the prophets “the flat earth theory.” 

Obscurantism is “Opposition to the advancement and diffusion of knowledge, a tendency or desire to prevent enquiry or enlightenment.” Such is the attitude of those who, however estimable they may otherwise be, set Moses and the prophets in opposition to science through a misinterpretation of their writings. – The Christadelphian (1916) 53:42

The regrettable incursion of long-debunked YEC views into the community from the late 1960s onwards tracks that of American evangelicalism which also went from OEC to YEC during this time, and whose influence on the community due to the dependence of the community on conservative American evangelicalism for some of its intellectual heavy-lifting.

One of the side-effects of the notorious Scopes Evolution trial in 1925 was the decline in quality of science education in the United States, with evolution quite frequently being taught badly. The launch by the USSR of the Sputnik satellite in 1957 sent shock waves through the United States, reminding it forcefully of the poor quality of science education. This catalysed the 1958 National Defense Education Act which aimed to revolutionise science education, meaning that evolution finally properly taught in US schools. Unsurprisingly, this triggered fundamentalists in the US. 

Shortly after this, the engineer Henry Morris and the OT theologian John Whitcomb published in 1961 The Genesis Flood, a book that owed much to Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price's flood geology which was grounded in his Seventh Day Adventist views on the literality of creation in seven days and the formation of the Earth's geological features by a global flood. This book did much to trigger a change in the conservative Evangelical world from OEC to YEC.  Unfortunately, this book was positively reviewed in The Christadelphian in 1962  and stocked by CMPA, giving flood geology and YEC quasi-official endorsement.  

Another factor which arguably did much to prime the community for infection by YEC was the Ralph Lovelock affair in the mid-1960s, which saw a prominent UK brother excommunicated for trying to reconcile Genesis with palaeoanthropology. What is often overlooked is that the then-arranging brothers of Watford Ecclesia did not seek to make this a template for how the community should deal with the problem:

“At the same time, we are strongly of the opinion that the problems that undoubtedly exist should be frankly admitted by us as a community, for we do naught but dishonour to the word of God by pretending that these problems are not there. Our Brotherhood bears a responsibility to those in search of Scripture truth, and especially to those of tender years, to turn its attention to the solving of these difficulties in an atmosphere of calm, sincere, conscientious study, unhindered by the rumours, mistrust, suspicion and hasty judgments that have been all too prevalent among us in recent times.” – “Statement from the Watford Ecclesia” The Christadelphian (1966) 103:543-544

The community however ended up rejecting any attempt at "calm, sincere, conscientious study" and careened into the obscurantism against which C. C. Walker warned half a century earlier:

“In the last twenty years the pressure from the scientific view of origins has been increasingly felt among us.  Attempts are made to reconcile the Bible view with that of modern science… As servants of God it is not possible for us to investigate the claims of science experimentally. What we can do, however, is to discover whether tension exists between God's Word and the theories of science. If such is discovered then the servants of God must reject immediately and without question the conclusions of men. – Humphreys, E “The Problem of Sin's Origin” (1969: D Bedson, D. Manton; Coventry)

Ironically, the community was more than happy to accept the "conclusions of men" provided they were fundamentalists. A Bible-Science seminar held at Digbeth Civic Hall, Birmingham in April 1971 featured four speakers from various denominations, including the crank physicist Harold Slusher who was both a young earth creationist and a relativity denialist. Examples of bogus arguments used to 'prove' a young earth included a thin meteoric dust layer on moon and low nickel concentration in ocean,  (The Christadelphian (1971) 108:263). Incredibly, Slusher’s arguments were known to be wrong even in 1971, indicating an appalling lapse in quality control and intellectual stewardship. Six years after Watford, the call for studying these problems with the appropriate degree of intellectual honesty was dead in the water. Further Bible-Science seminars organised by young Christadelphians studying or having recently graduated from science (The Christadelphian (1974) 111:239) continued this reckless drift into YEC obscurantism as evidenced by the screening of the controversial YEC film Footprints in Stone. Even worse was the fact that YEC material was being recommended and sold by the CMPA,  indicated that the traditional OEC consensus was being overturned.

There was some pushback, thankfully. A positive review of The World that Perished by John Whitcomb, one of the authors of The Genesis Flood [The Christadelphian (1977) 114:138] prompted a letter from Alan Hayward who pointed out problems with flood geology and finished:

 “When Dr. Peter Moore reviewed The World that Perished for a journal published by the Bible-believing Inter-Varsity Fellowship, he concluded:

“I feel that a book such as this one … can do a great deal of harm in alienating from the Christian faith those who have some knowledge of and respect for the natural sciences.”

“There are many brethren, Brother Editor, who share his fears.” – The Christadelphian (1977) 114:269.

Hayward later wrote the 1985 book Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies which despite its poor treatment of evolution still remains forty years later the best criticism of YEC written by a Christadelphian.

What is frustrating is that an understanding of the history of science would have greatly aided our community in rejecting YEC and flood geology as these are ideas rejected over 200 years ago by believing geologists. Diluvialism was the belief that Noah's flood was the primary agent in shaping the earth, and was held by early geologists up top the early 18th century.  Major works included

• Thomas Burnet –  Sacred Theory of the Earth (1681)
• John Woodward – A Essay toward a Natural History of the Earth (1695).
• William Whiston – A New Theory of the Earth (1696)
• John Ray – Three Physico-Theological Discourses (1713)

Problems unearthed during the 18th century however led scientists to reject it, as evangelical Christian and geologist Davis Young noted:

“Over the course of the eighteenth century, most students of the earth concluded that global diluvialism no longer provided a fruitful framework for further research. On the one hand, there was no consensus regarding mechanisms of the flood or interpretations of relevant biblical texts. There were so many proposals about the nature of the flood and of the great deep that about all that was agreed on was that there had been a global flood. Such diversity of interpretation called into question the use of the biblical story as a source of information about the flood as a geological event.” – Davis A. Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part One),” Westminster Theological Journal 49.1 (1987): 23. 

Replacing diluvialism was neptunism whuch argued that earth was originally covered by sea, rocks formed by sedimentation, with land masses emerging over time. It was advanced by  German geologist Abraham Werner (1749–1817) though French ambassador Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738) expressed Neptunian ideas. In 1797, Irish mineralogist and conservative Christian Richard Kirwan wrote a Neptunist account of geology he believed to be in harmony with the Bible. Neptunism fell out of favour in the early 19th century when as with diluvialism geologists recognised the evidence simply wasn't there:

By about 1830, both diluvialism and neptunism had been rejected by the practicing geological community. Numerous discoveries pointed toward a long, complex, dynamic earth history that was totally incompatible with a global flood, and newer studies in the early nineteenth century indicated that rocks formerly interpreted as chemical precipitates from a universal ocean had cooled from intensely hot liquids injected into the overlying fossil-bearing strata. Stratigraphic evidence also made it clear that the ocean had repeatedly advanced on and retreated from the landmasses: it had not simply retreated uniformly…Neptunism, like diluvialism, rightly fell by the wayside. – Davis A. Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part Two),” Westminster Theological Journal 49.2 (1987): 261–262.

Concordism , the approach to harmonising Genesis with the geological data without invoking literalism, succeeded these earlier theories, with gap theory and day-age the most prominent approaches:

Gap theory – Gen 1:1 referred to long-distant creation which was destroyed, while Gen 1:2 referred to the recreation of earth a long time later.
Day-age theory – Days of Genesis 1 were long time periods 

Gap theory quite popular with early 19th century geologists such as William Buckland,  Adam Sedgwick, and Edward Hitchcock.  It was generally rejected in favour of the day-age theory on scientific and theological grounds. The day-age theory asserted that the days of Genesis 1 referred to long time periods which were mapped onto conventional geological / astronomical time. Notable proponents include geologists Hugh Miller (1802-1856), Arnold Guyot (1807-1884) and J. William Dawson (1820-1899). Secularisation of science meant harmonising Genesis and geology was no longer an issue, but Christian geologists in the late 20th century continued to advance reconciliations, and variants of it still persist today among some OECs.

One major problem is that there is no harmony between the proposed models as Davis Young note:
 

He writes that “a review of 300 years of literalistic and concordistic harmonizations between the biblical text and the results of empirical geological study shows that there has been absolutely no consensus among evangelical Christians about interpretation of the details of the biblical accounts of creation and the flood or about texts such as Psalm 104; Proverbs 8, or other wisdom literature that bear on the creation, the flood, or the physical character of the earth.” - Davis A. Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part Two),” Westminster Theological Journal 49.2 (1987): 291–292. The utter lack of harmony between these varying concordist reconciliations alone shows that the attempt to see the creation narratives as somehow corresponding to geological and astronomical history is profoundly misguided, and as Young and other scholars have noted, this should be enough for us to rethink what the creation narratives are really trying to say:

“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. We can forever avoid falling into the perpetual conflicts between Genesis and geology if we follow those evangelical scholars who stress that Genesis is divinely inspired ancient near eastern literature written within a specific historical context that entailed well-defined thought patterns, literary forms, symbols, and images. It makes sense that Genesis presents a theology of creation that is fully aware of and challenges the numerous polytheistic cosmogonic myths of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the other cultures surrounding Israel by exposing their idolatrous worship of the heavenly bodies, of the animals, and of the rivers by claiming that all of those things are creatures of the living God.” – Davis A. Young, “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part Two),” Westminster Theological Journal 49.2 (1987): 303.

It is worth noting here that over one hundred years ago, C. C. Walker in commenting on the existence of ancient fossil birds that had become extinct and their possible relation to modern animals mused that if such a connection could be demonstrated, we would need to revise our understanding of the creation narratives: 

“As with fishes, so with birds, many remains are found in the rocks, of a kind not now found upon earth. Our museums contain footprints of gigantic birds impressed in sand now turned to rock, and remains actually embedded in rock. If we understand Moses as teaching that the earth and all that therein is came into existence some 6,000 years ago, we shall scarcely be able to account for these evidently very ancient remains of creatures that do not now exist. If we suppose a sudden and absolute break some 6,000 years ago, or before, resulting in the destruction of all life, and that the creation account of Genesis describes a new creation following, we ought to find some evidence of the break, and we cannot well account for the apparently close relationship that obtains between extinct and existing forms. 

“There are forms becoming extinct in our own day from slow and natural causes. May it not have been so in pre-Adamic times? The professors tell us for instance that some of these ancient birds, whose strides we can see for ourselves from their footprints were from four to six feet long, were like gigantic ostriches. Supposing that it were ever established that they were the actual progenitors of our smaller forms (“There were giants in the earth in those days” might apply to to birds and beasts), would the credibility of the Mosaic narrative suffer? Not at all, in our estimation. We should indeed have to revise somewhat our interpretation of the brief cosmogony of Gen. 1.; but should not waver as concerning its divinity, nor await with less faith and patience the reappearance of Moses in the land of the living.” – C. C. Walker “Genesis” The Christadelphian (1910), 47:501.

This criterion has been met given that bird evolution is well-documented in the fossil record. Intellectual honesty alone should be enough for us to put YEC to rest and accept what the ancient witness of an evolving earth shows us.

Bibliography and Further Reading

Numbers, Ronald L.. The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2006.
Young, Davis A. “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists. Part 1.” Westminster Theological Journal 1987, Vol. 49 (1), pp: 1–34.
Young, David A. “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists. Part 2” Westminster Theological Journal 1987, Vol. 49 (2), pp: 257–304. 
Davidson, Gregg, and Ken Wolgemuth. "Testing and Verifying Old Age Evidence: Lake Suigetsu Varves, Tree Rings, and Carbon-14." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 70.2 (2018): 75-76.
Wien, Roger “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective” https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html