This book is a history of creationism, the attempt to align the scientific quest for understanding of human and earth origins with "literal" readings of Genesis. It is also, by association, a history of the specific culture within which scientific creationism grew, that is American and Canadian Evangelicalism in the 19th and 20th century as it grappled with positivism, rationalism and modernism and transformed from its postmillenial to premillenial variant as a result. A shift that occured over the 20th century which is also narrativised clearly is the change of the main enemy of fundamentalism from evolution to geology.
During the 19th century it seems that uniformitarianism was accepted rather without a fight. Although it was vehemetly disputed by Louis Agassiz, this was an intra-geological as opposed to the debate over evolution which was more universal in its reach, pehaps due precisely to its more personal resonances. It makes sense therefore that defenders of the fundamentals would focus on this front, where they could count on popular increduality towards having a "monkey grandfather", and where the arraigned theory itself was more tendentious. Mendelian genetics was largely unknown before 1900 and so in the absence of a satisfactory mechanism for the inheritance of characteristics, criticism was levelled at the theory of evolution even within mainstream science. In this environment, many Christian anti-evolutionists did not have misgivings about science as such, as they had horses to back within the academy. As the "modern synthesis" developed during the early 20th century, fundamentalist anti-evolutionists slowly found themselves being pushed further and further outside secular society. Biology is not the only realm where this occured and this marginalisation of evangelism is likely responsible for the shift from optimistic postmillenialism to lugubrious pre-millenialism at the same time.
Within evangelical circles cynicism towards science grew. An interesting view of how one evangelical scientist named James Bole reconcilled themselves with the problem of the overwhelming support in scientific circles for evolution is given in the book. It quotes Boles saying "from the point of view of specialised knowledge it would seem that the greater authority rested with the evolutionists"but that also "The evolutionist has faith in his hypothesis; the Christian has faith in his God". There was a wide view amongst evangelicals that science was limited to the accumulation of facts, and that the interpretation of these facts was an ideologically informed exercise that happened afterwards. In this view there was no need for an evangelical biologist to accept evolution even after having grasped the facts. In fact it would be heretical to interpret them that way as interpretation was purely a question of belief, in which evolution or christianity were two competing confessions of faith.
Slowly this skepticism towards the accepted interpretations expanded from biology to the other half of creationism: Geology. And it is on the question of creationist geology that the majority of the book is focussed. The book seperates creationism into three groups defined by the different ways they read the six day creation "literally". These are, in order of increasing fundamentalism: the day-age theory, where each "day" can last as long as neccesary to fit the time required for a geological process; the gap or "ruin and restoration theory", where between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is an interminable gap within which all geological history occurs; and Flood Geology, where the geological history of the earth occurs after the six-day creation (where each day is 24 hours) and is a result of an extremelly rapid erosion and sedimentation during the Noahic flood.
The day-age theory was favoured during the latter half of the 19th century by evangelical geologists like John William Dawson and George Frederick Wright who held high academic positions. It continued to be held even by leading evangelicals associated with the beginning of the fundamentalist movement such as William Jennings Bryan and William Bell Riley. The Gap theory was associated with the ealy pre-millenialists and was included in the glosses of the Scofield Reference Bible from which it went on to have a large circulation. The Flood Geology view began as a very isolated and denominational view among two groups that were marginal to the wider evangelical movement: Seventh Day Adventists, and conservative Lutherans. For the Adventists, their interest in flood geology was prompted by the writings of Ellen G White, especially those concerning her visions of the creation which explicitly followed such a chronology. For conservative Lutherans on the other hand, their interest in flood geology was prompted by Lutheran biblical hermaneutics which following a "is means is" philosophy, would be loath to interpret the days of creation as anything other than days.
The earlier day-age theory was later viewed by the flood geologists as having conceeded too much ground to the modernists. By granting an avowedly metaphorical reading (even if it were one backed up explictly by scripture) to Genesis they had destroyed the foundation of the entire story of salvation, from which not one word could be taken without the whole edifice falling. And so they began a rear-guard action to capture the evangelical educational institutions for Flood Geology, a campaign that has largely been successful, if not completely overwhelming.
The first systematic consideration of Flood Geology was by George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, whose book The New Geology (1923) was an inspiration for a generation of flood geologists including Henry Morris & John C Whitcomb, whose influential book The Genesis Flood (1961) eventually won the day for their interpretation in Evangelical circles. Price's innovation was to postulate that the apparent ordering of fossils into sequences that were recognisable across the globe was actually due to the self-sorting of fossils during the inundation period due to their specific gravities. Here agreed facts were given a new Christian interpretation. Morris and Whitcomb also added extra sophistication to the theory. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and interpreted the firmament described in Genesis as a "Vapour Canopy" in the sky which crashed down to earth and caused the Noahic flood. The vapour canopy also had the effect of reducing harmful cosmic radiation reaching the earth and explained the old ages of Noah and his ancestors.
The rationale for an ever more tortuous reading of the book of nature from evangelicals may seem like simple obscuritanism, and to a certain extent it is. However it is worth understanding the motivation behind their intransigence. In a time of extreme social change and unrest which was viewed as leading up to the tribulation and eventual second coming of Jesus (and especially in the Seventh Day Adventist tradition which was especially sensitive to the influence of Satan in contemporary society), modernism in its religious, scientific and political forms was viewed as the solvent of Christian society, the harbigner of the end times, and therefore the ground on which the final battle between good and evil was to be thought.
Something that is stressed repeatedly in the book is the way in which pseudoscientific views of human and earth origins often fitted neatly with racist and reactionary views (with the notable exception of Walter E Lammerts who in many ways was extremely idiosyncratic). Frank Lewis Marsh (1899-1992), another Seventh Day Adventist, wrote in 1941 that "hybridisation" between the original and seperately created races of man had been "the principal tool used by Satan in destroying the original perfection and harmony among living things" and that black skin was one of many "abnormalities" that resulted in this diabolical way. Bernard Acworth (1885-1963), a British creationist wrote that "the goal of evolution, through psycho-analysis, is moral degradation; through organised mass birth-control and sterilisation, extinction; and through its social creed of communism, revolution". Douglas Dewar (1875-1957), a British colonial officer in India, recollected that he grew increasingly concerned about the harm that evolution was doing "to the morality of the white race". John N. Moore (1920-????), a natural science lecturer at Michigan State University and member of the Creation Research Society established in the 60s, was reported to criticise evolution becaue it was "a theory he linked to left-wing politics". David A Warriner (1922), who worked with Moore at MSU and in the CRS was noted as being openly racist.
More peverse perhaps (but the obvious result nonetheless) was the attempts by creationists to utilise the philosophy of science of Karl Popper to invalidate evolution as a scientific theory. They argued that it failed Popper's test of falsifiability as one could not conduct an experiment to falsify evolution. Popper protested but could obviously not offer a rebuttal, his dehistoricisation of the field in order to make science and knowledge apolitical had left himself defenceless. Contradictions notwithstanding, they even used Thomas Kuhn's idea of paradigm shifts to argue for the validity of their position as a minoritarian view.
It may seem odd to pay so much attention to such a fundamentally irrational body of thought. But in an age of irrationality, such ideologies can become more appealing to a ruling class that needs to deflect from the uncomfortable truths of science. The logic of unreason is therefore worth studying.