Science and the Bible

I’ve just received a first edition of “Science and the Bible: or, The Mosaic Creation and Modern Discoveries”, by Rev. Herbert W. Morris, 1871. As the description below states, Morris advocates a ‘Ruin-Reconstruction’ type exegesis of Genesis.

I’m looking forward to seeing what differences exist, if any, between this old form of secular-compromising, and that which more modern compromisers propound.



“Morris believed in a six day creation long after Darwin and anthropologists began to find evidence of mankind living longer ago than previously believed. He believed in an old universe but a young humanity and a literal deluge, like many of the 19th century Christians.


His literal view of the Bible was undiminished. He wrote:


"Few readers need be informed that the theory has been advanced, that these days were not literal days, but immensely long periods. Much ingenuity and learning have been exercised in attempts to make the Divine Record countenance this idea. While we regard the great facts of geology as being established by proofs second only to the mathematical demonstrations of astronomy, yet we are constrained to say, that the method pursued to establish this interpretation does not appear to us to be plain and fair dealing with the Word of God but rather a "torturing of the Book of Life out of its proper meaning." If the first chapter of Genesis can be made to mean what these theories express, other portions of Scripture can, with equal ease, be made to mean almost anything that the whim of man may desire, or his imagination invent. Here the point to be decided is, not what this Scripture can be made to mean, but what does it mean what idea was it intended to convey? We believe that it means literal and natural days, for the following reasons:……. "(Morris, 1871, p. 80)”