--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Pack, Frederick J. collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 13 number: 11 published: 1910-09 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: "Pack, Frederick J., “The Creation of the Earth,” *Improvement Era* 13, no. 11 (September 1910): 1023–1027." source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera13011unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera13011unse start_page: 1023 end_page: 1027 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1910-09) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera13011unse publication_year: 1910 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1910, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # The Creation of the Earth The Creation of the Earth. BY FREDERICK J. PACK, A. M., PH. D., DESERET PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. The discussion of the "Creation of the Earth" will appear under three heads: I, The Biblical Account; II, The Astronom- ical Hypotheses of Earth Origin; and III, The Geological Record. In considering the first an effort will be made to support the fact that the writer of the biblical account of creation could not have received his information except through the source of inspi- ration. The second article will contain an outline of the va- rious hypotheses of earth origin, including the Nebular, the Mete- oric and the Planetesimal. Article number three will contain an account of creation as revealed in the geological record, concluding with a summary in which an effort will be made to show the complete agreement of the facts derived from these three sources. I. WAS THE WRITER OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION INSPIRED? In the following discussion the question of the identity of the writer of the Book of Genesis is not to be considered. The destructive work of the so-called higher criticism has made but little inroad upon the general belief that the book was written by Moses, some time about fifteen hundred years before the birth of Christ. But the question before us has to do solely with the source of the knowledge possessed by the writer of that book, and specifically with that portion of it which deals with the events of creation. 1024 IMPROVEMENT ERA. The writer of the Book of Genesis gives the chronology cf creation as follows: 1. The change from darkness to light. 2. Separation of waters above and below by the appearance of a firmament or expanse (i. e., the atmosphere). 3. The dividing or segregation of the land and water upon the earth, followed by a growth of vegetation. 4. Appearance of the sun, moon and stars visible from the surface of the earth. 5. Production of the lower forms of animal life, those that swarm in the waters, and the creeping and the flying species of the land. 6. Introduction of the higher land animals, including man. As before intimated, it is very generally believed that Moses is the author of the book of Genesis, and that he wrote it near the beginning of the fifteenth century B. C. The opinion is held by many that he received it as a direct revelation from God, while others take the stand that he may have copied large parts of it from authentic manuscripts then in existence, and still others, who even accept the authorship of Moses, believe that he gathered the story from sources approaching the mythical. For our present purpose we shall refer to the author of the Bible account of cre- ation, as contained in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, simply as the writer, and for the argument at hand it matters not as to his identity. We hope to prove that the writer must have been inspired, or he could not have written the account as it appears. It becomes necessary at this point to state that the chronol- ogy of creative events as given in the Book of Genesis has been vindicated by modern scientific discovery in almost ever detail. The means by which this has been done will be largely reserved for consideration in articles II and III. Granting, therefore, for the time being, that the Bible chronology of creation is correctly stated, inquiry will be turned at once to a consideration of the source of the writer's information; which, it appears, may be determined by the answers to the following questions: 1. Had the knowledge of the times reached a stage of THE CREATION OF THE EARTH. 1025 development sufficient to enable the writer to speak from the standpoint of actual acquaintance with the facts? 2. Did the writer arrive at this chronology through a pro- cess of reasoning? 3. Is the chronology as here stated simply the result of chance? 4. Did the writer receive his information as a revelation from Deity? The questions will be considered in the order in which they are given. It is apparent that inasmuch as no human being was present at the time of the creation no history or tradition of these events is possible. The writer, whether Moses or someone preceding him, could not, therefore, have received his information from such sources. The only record of these events open to man is that written in the great Book of Nature, and in order to read it one must be versed in many, if not all of the intricacies of celestial mechanics, and more particularly modern stratigraphic geology. While, of course, this source of information has been in existence ever since the events recorded therein occurred, yet its value was not appreciated or even its existence known until many centuries after the Book of Genesis was written. It is, however, generally known that astronomy is one of the oldest sciences, yet it should be borne in mind that the first well-defined hypothesis of earth-origin was postulated by LaPlace scarcely more than one hundred years ago, or fully three thousand years after the Book of Genesis was written. Furthermore, this hypothesis deals only with the events which brought the earth into existence, but attempts no delineation of the appearance of life. The writer, therefore, could not have received his information from astronomical sources, firstly, because of the lack of develop- ment of that and allied science, and secondly, because astronomy, even in its most modern development, cannot deal with the origin of life, either floral or faunal. William Smith (1769-1839) has been called the ' 'Father of Stratigraphic Geology." In 1799, scarcely more than a century ago, he first pointed out that the history of the earth may be ascertained by a close study of the fossils contained within the rocks, and further, that each series of strata is characterized by 1026 IMPR 0 VEMENT ERA . definitely defined flora and fauna. Stratigraphic geology, based primarily upon these facts announced by Smith, is now in a posi- tion to outline in considerable detail the order of appearance upon the earth of both plant and animal life, and this ability has arisen very largely within the last fifty years. We should say, there- fore, in answer to the first question, that it would be wholly impos- sible for the writer of the Book of Genesis, living fifteen hundred years B. C, to have given this chronology through any informa- tion he may have received from the science of his times. It has been argued by some that this chronology of creative events is the result of a combination of reasoning and chance — that the writer reasoned upon the matter, used good judgment, and was fortunate in stating the events correctly. This objection, how- ever, is beset with many difficulties. Strangely enough the Bible chronology of creation does not appear to be a reasonable one until it is viewed in the light of recent scientific development. The fol- lowing may be named as points which would likely have appeared inconsistent before their truth was supported by recent research: The appearance of vegetation before the sun began to shine; the existence of light before the appearance of the sun moon and stars; and the introduction of the sun as late as the fourth cre- ative period. To the unscientific mind these points appear quite out of their natural order. Recent researches in paleontologic geology have, however, revealed the fact that the first types of vegetation were of the simplest sort, and of the kind which appear to have re- quired but little direct light for their growth. The early absence of vegetation requiring large quantities of direct light is to some sufficient proof that the sun did not appear until well along in the creative period. In accord with certain lavs pertaining to light and its origin, it is generally ./elieved among scientists that the activity in matter during the first formative periods of the earth's history would be quite sufficient of itself to generate considerable light. And many further hold that during the early stages of the earth's formation it was enshrouded with great masses of vapor- ous material excluding the direct light of the sun and other celes- tial luminaries. It is not possible, however, that the writer could have come to the distinctive conclusion without some external assistance. THE CREATION OF THE EARTH. 1027 When driven to the extreme it might be urged, by some, who are opposed to the divine authenticity of the Bible, that the writer of the chronology of creation simply drew upon his imagination and proved fortunate, or, in other words, that the agreement of the Bible chronology with that worked out by scientific investiga- tion is only a case of coincidence. The probabilities of chance in this case, however, are so great that this objection may at once be ruled out of the question. If six numbers representing crea- tive events, and ranging from one to six, be placed in a receptacle, shaken and emptied, there is hardly one chance in thousands that they will appear in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. And it would have been equally difficult for the writer to have arranged the events in their proper order had he depended wholly upon coincidence. The facts thus far presented seem to show that the writer of the chronology of creation could not have received his information from the science of his day; that one unacquainted with modern scientific discoveries would have placed the creative events in quite another ->rder; and that this chronology cannot be the result of chance. Another point which seems completely to incapaciate the writer for the task of forming the chronology was his undoubted ignorance of the existence of at least one of the events— the appearance of light independent of that of the sun, moon or stars. And this brings us to the answer of the fourth question. The manuscript of the Bible chronology of creation was likely written near the beginning of the fifteenth century B. C. It was given first place in the Septuagint version, translated practically two hundred years B. C. It, of course, was not written as a scientific treatise, but was apparently designed to meet the needs of a primitive people who trusted in God for their guidance. It has stood the test of discovery and criticism for more than three thousand years, and it now coincides in almost every detail with the most advanced scientific discovery of our times. It seems quite apparent that the writer of that account could not have received his information from any source except that of revelation. He must have been inspired.