The Genesis Flood in

Pre-Darwinian American Geology

The Case of Edward Hitchcock

Rodney L. Stiling

Department of HistorySeattle Pacific University

rstiling@spu.edu206/281-2680

19C American Geology

• Qualitative Quantitative

• Proto-mathematical Mathematical

• Pre-petroleum Petroleum

• Pre-Darwinian Darwinian

Edward Hitchcock1793-1864

• Pastor

• Teacher

• Professor of Geology & Chemistry

• College President

• Author

• Professional Geologist– State Surveys– AGS / AAGN / AAAS

Hitchcock and Geology

• Student of Benjamin Silliman at Yale

• Professor of Geology and Chemistry at Amherst College from 1825

• Head of Massachusetts State Geological Survey (1831 – 1841)

• First President of Association of American Geologists and Naturalists (1841)

• Founding Member of AAAS

The Flood: Four Interpretations

• Revolution Model (Cuvier)

• Diluvial Model (Buckland)

• Transient / Blended Model (Buckland)

• Local / Regional Model (Smith)

Four Floods Overview

Thomas Cole (1801-1848) “The Subsiding Waters of the Deluge” (1829)

Continental-Seabed Revolution Model (~1820)Drawn from Georges Cuvier (1812)–

“the catastrophes . . . caused the different parts of our continents to rise by degrees from the basin of the sea, but it has also frequently happened, that lands which had been laid dry have been again covered by the water. . . . if there is any circumstance thoroughly established in geology, it is, that the crust of our globe has been subjected to a great and sudden revolution, the epoch of which cannot be dated much farther back than five or six thousand years ago."

Revolution Model

Revolution Model (~1820)continued

Hitchcock:“the crust of our globe has undergone several revolutions by the overflowing of water – and secondly that the last revolution of this kind

was not very remote”

“Our present continents were in the bottom of the ocean in the antediluvian day and the continents that then existed are now in the same situation – that is when the first were

submerged the last emerged”

Four Floods Overview

Diluvial Model (1823)Diluvial Model (1823)

William Buckland (1784-1856)William Buckland (1784-1856) Reliquiae DiluvianaeReliquiae Diluvianae (1823) (1823)

“. . .undeniable evidence of a recent transient “. . .undeniable evidence of a recent transient inundation . . . . justified in applying the inundation . . . . justified in applying the

epithet epithet diluvialdiluvial to the results of this great to the results of this great convulsion. . .”convulsion. . .”

Hitchcock: Diluvium = Flood evidenceHitchcock: Diluvium = Flood evidenceGeology is “found more and more to speak Geology is “found more and more to speak

the language of Revelation”the language of Revelation”

Diluvial Model

Four Floods Overview

Blended / Transient Model Blended / Transient Model (1838)(1838)• Hitchcock: “deluge” and “powerful rush of water” Hitchcock: “deluge” and “powerful rush of water”

have indeed swept North America, but, “is it, or is have indeed swept North America, but, “is it, or is it not identical with that described by Moses?”it not identical with that described by Moses?”

• Problem: Human remains never found in diluvial Problem: Human remains never found in diluvial formations (Buckland, 1836)formations (Buckland, 1836)

• Therefore diluvium Therefore diluvium anterioranterior to humankind to humankind

• Deluges frequent but brief; Noah’s Flood Deluges frequent but brief; Noah’s Flood evidence either blended or overgrown: “no traces evidence either blended or overgrown: “no traces be now remaining on the earth’s surface of that be now remaining on the earth’s surface of that event.”event.”

Four Floods Overview

Local/Regional/Partial Model (1841)

• Influence of John Pye Smith (1774-1851)• On the Relation Between the Holy Scriptures

and Some Parts of Geological Science (1839)

• Hitchcock – Flood: “universal terms with limited meaning” and “not universal over the globe, but only over the region inhabited by man.”

• Central Asia – no geological traces

Local/Regional/Partial Flood

Local/Regional/Partial Flood

Hitchcock’s SummaryHitchcock’s Summary

“ “ on no subject has there been a greater on no subject has there been a greater change of opinion. From a belief in the change of opinion. From a belief in the complete destruction and dissolution of complete destruction and dissolution of

the globe by that event, those best the globe by that event, those best qualified to judge now doubt whether it qualified to judge now doubt whether it be possible to identify one mark of that be possible to identify one mark of that

event in nature.”event in nature.”

The Religion of GeologyThe Religion of Geology (1851) (1851)

Relations of Geosciences with Religion: Hitchcock

Remained fully committed to Christian faith Found lifelong joy and fulfillment in the pursuit of the

geological sciences Committed to scientific rigor and excellence Never backed away from belief that the Genesis Flood

constituted an actual historical event Thus : Commitment to reconciliation of science and

scripture. “Christian Geologist” and “Reconciler” Result: adjusted both scriptural interpretation models

and geological models to maintain reconciliation

Joseph Turner (1775-1851)

“The Deluge” (1804-5)

Joseph Turner (1775-1851)

“The Deluge” (Engraving) 1813

Francis Danby (1793-1861)“The Deluge” (1837-40)

John Martin (1789-1854) “The Deluge” (1834)

The Genesis Flood in

Pre-Darwinian American Geology:

The Case of Edward Hitchcock

Rod StilingDepartment of History

Seattle Pacific Universityrstiling@spu.edu206/281-2680