Reflections on the Exegesis between Theology and Geology

Koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Department of Liberal Education

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

 

In a very enlightening article, Walter Moser discussed the origin of the rift between theology and geology (Walter Moser, “Buffon: exegete entre théologie et géologie” Strumenti Critici ns. II/1 53 (1987): 17-42).

He opened up his discussion with the words: “Our intellectual climate – especially in the world of the French – is marked by the event which has some of the genealogy of Nietzsche in the air”. In the thoughts of Michel Foucault (1969), Moser also think that the archaeology of knowledge leads to an analysis of geology.

 

Emergence of Modern Science

Two scholars, René Koselleck and Wolf Lepenies suggested that the years 1775-1825 laid the foundation for the thinking of Modern Europe (Moser 1987: 19). The historians are thus to work within this period to understand modern science.

Moser lists three successive moments for the growth of the sciences:

a.     Natural history: in this phase the objects of nature were collected and inventories were created.

b.     History of Nature: in this phase the chronology of the objects of nature were made and attempts were made to write the history of nature.

c.      Natural Science: it is an analytical approach of the objects of Nature (Moser 1987: 19).

It is not the 18th century which has invented science. It goes back to the work of Bacon Novum Organum (Moser 1987: 19).

 

Agonized Situation

Around 1750 theology met science (Moser 1987: 21). It was full of conflict. The understanding of hermeneutics is essential. Theology before this time had a control over science (Moser 1987: 21). The Bible was primarily the control of science.

 

Buffon, Histoire de la Terre (1749)

The theologians are the guardians of the Words of the Bible and its veracity (Moser 1987: 22).

Buffon set about the task of writing a History of the Origin of the Earth that was different than that of the theologians or the Bible (Moser 1987: 22). “It is this account which constituted the terrain of conflict between science and theology” (Moser 1987: 22).

Buffon was opposed to that the Genesis account is made factual and truth in the hands of exegetes but based on speculation while it is not submitted to empirical evidence (Moser 1987: 22). The objects of truth were to be administered and controlled, according to Buffon (Moser 1987: 23).

           In January of 1751, the Faculty of Theology sent to Buffon 14 propositions extracted from his book which are reprehensible and contrary to the faith of the English (Moser 1987: 23).

           The author was invited to explain in conformity to their principles. Moser think it was intimidation and a monopoly (Moser 1987: 23). He replied that he gives entire satisfaction to the faculty of theology in keeping to all of their two plans. Moser said that his response was very subtile “mais très subtile in l’occurrence”.

          

Epochs of Nature

He wrote the book with a double audience in mind, pleasing himself with empirical speculative about the origin of the World on the one side and pleasing the Theologians with the understanding that the Bible is true. He had to satisfy the surveillance of the theologians (Moser 1987: 24).

           The work of Buffon went through a genesis and this is discussed by Jacques Roger (1962) in his introduction.

           Moser pointed out that Buffon went about very diplomatically and carefully to circumvent the critical eyes of the theologians (Moser 1987: 24).

           Buffon decided to discuss in his introduction the origin of the World according to Genesis. After that, he supplied the origin of the World as his scientific thoughts led him. To tone done the sensure against his new ideas in science that are against the Bible, he first studied Genesis.

           He views it that in his time the chariot of the Word of God is crossed to the word of man (Moser 1987: 25).

 

Intermediary Theory: meaning and force

Buffon has used an argument style that Moser identify to be also in Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, as Michel Foucault explained (1967) (Moser 1987: 26). It is a mechanism to change people’s taboo ideas into a political change position.

 

Buffon’s exegesis of Genesis

When considering the book of Genesis and his own ideas, Buffon was confronted with the age of the earth (Moser 1987: 26).Buffon gave it 200 000 years and the biblical text as between 6000 and 8000 years. Buffon declares “that which are reported in the sacred Bible is not very certain” but he does not want to attribute this contradictions to God (Moser 1987: 27).

 

Created and Day in Genesis by Buffon

He focused his exegesis on day and on creation. He rejected a literal meaning and say it is figurative (Moser 1987: 27). The reading should be in his thinking “space of time” or “portion of time”. This reasoning, says Moser, gave Buffon the authority to transform the seven days of the biblical text into seven epochs (Moser 1987: 27 “ce qui autorise Buffon à transformer les << 7 jours>> du texte biblique en << 7 époques>> dans le texte de l’histoire de la Nature”.

           The question of day or epoch became the cornerstone of his legitimization of his work of geology. This is true. When the Modern Evolutionist Walther Veith became a Seventh Day Adventist Creationist, it was because he understood Genesis Creation to be in six days.

The understanding of the day in Genesis controls the ideology underlying the discussion.

 

Create

Buffon still stated that God started the project by initializing the activities, similarly to other authors of the 18th century (Moser 1987: 27). Two forces were operating against each other in these discussions of Buffon: on the one side the establishment of meaning by mystical penetration and the establishment of an interior unbelief.

 

Moser complement Buffon that he broke down the faith in the Bible in an elegant way (Moser 1987: 28).

He cites from the book by Chladenius, Vernünftige Gedanken vom Warscheinlichen (1748) as foundation for his reasoning. The composition of his interpretation became the rule for the interdict of incoherence and of the contradiction intern in the text (Moser 1987: 29).

Buffon tried to depose of Scripture and of the divine author so that it will be to his advantage to reinforce his scientific cause against the reading of the theologians (Moser 1987: 31).

Buffon said “all in the annals of Moses is addressed to reach the intelligence of ordinary people; all is represented relatively to simple humans . . .but it is suffice to instruct that which is void of a Creator” (Buffon cited by Moser 1987: 34).

Moser indicated that Buffon ended his first chapter of Genesis explanation with the self-conclusion that the book of nature is in opposition, antagonistic in appearance with the surface of the text.

Buffon established that:

1.     Nature is like a book.

2.     The book is the double of the Holy Scriptures which identifies their author.

3.     The book of Nature is therefore to be read like the Holy Scriptures (Moser 1987: 36).

Buffon structured his epochs and his continental drift theories from the Bible.

The theoretical discourse and methodology of hermeneutics is also full of metaphors and ideology just as scientists are ascribing to the Bible.

Notice how Buffon’s illustrations are full of examples of suggestive evolutionary origins. Human monkeys stand with a staff next to the monkey in the tree. Sea lions are drawn but the claws are arranged in the corner spread out with little wool as if a jacket, to indicate that their paws look like female hands. The suggestive aspects in his media supply should not be overlooked. It contributes to the popular acceptance of Darwinian fairy tales of monkey origins for humans.