Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist (most Evos don't know this)

Journal of Creation ^ | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist

by Tas Walker

One of the pioneers of geology was Nicolaus Steno who believed the Bible recorded an accurate history of the earth. As a consequence he used the biblical worldview as his starting point for his geological investigations, and as the framework for developing the first geological history ever produced for any location on Earth. His geological framework is remarkably similar to biblical models developed by modern creationist geologists.

Nicolaus Steno (1631–1686) has often been called the Father of modern geology. The three principles of stratigraphy he published (horizontality, superposition and lateral continuity) marked the birth of geology as a science and of stratigraphy in particular. They have stood the test of time. He had immense influence on geological thinking in the 17th and 18th centuries. His principles are still taught in first-year geology courses all over the world,[1] and used every day in the field by professional geologists. From them we can unravel the stratigraphy of sedimentary deposits.

Niels Stensen (as he was originally called) is the first person to apply the empirical method to geological investigations,[2] and he produced ‘one of the earliest directional accounts of both Earth and life history’.[3] In other words, he was the first person ever to describe the geological history of any area of the earth. As we will see, he described it within a biblical geological framework. That framework is consistent with the biblical geological model I developed in 1994,[4] starting with the assumption that the Bible describes real history. Carl Froede developed a similar model at about the same time.[5]

It is unfortunate that geologists today do not realize that Steno was a Bible believing creationist...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

To be fair, most everybody back then was.

All the same, this just proves that he obviously wasn’t a REAL scientist!!!!!!

/do I need it?

[RegulatorCountry]

Catastrophic, worldwide flood was accepted scienc until Hutton, who was derided by contemoraries in the late 1700’s as an atheist, came along with Uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism required immense spans of time to make sense. These immense spans of time were also useful for evolutionists. Uniformitariansim has since been discredited, with something once again approaching catastrophism having become less and less of a taboo, during the course of just my four or so decades on this Earth. But, the immense spans of time are still quite useful to evolution. So, they stand.

I’m struck by the admissions of some, such as Hubble, that evidence pointing to planetary exceptionalism is to be avoided. It’s clear that there is a built in philosophical bias, an inviolable set of a priori assumptions, that guides science in our world today.

[cripplecreek]

The earliest orgins of the big bang theory came from a vatican scientist.

[freekitty]

They don’t know it because they either don’t read their history or they ignore it. Probably both.

[metmom]

The Bible says, *In the beginning....*.

Science finally caught up after its frenzied attempts to deny it in the early 1900’s.

[Mr_Moonlight]

That framework is consistent with the biblical geological model I developed in 1994,[4] starting with the assumption that the Bible describes real history.

This is not surprising, as I've often maintained a faith that God created the physical universe which we live in, and left it to us to figure out how it all works. Not that we'd ever be able to even come close to understanding it all, but that God has given us the wherewithal to at least chip away at understanding some of the mysteries of the Creation.

[cripplecreek]

God has given us the wherewithal to at least chip away at understanding some of the mysteries of the Creation.

I like it and can't look at the photos of deep space without feeling a sense of reaffirmation of God.

[Mr_Moonlight]

One of my favorite phrases regarding Cosmology goes something like this (paraphrasing, since I don't remember the exact phrase):

"If the Universe is a watch winding down, then how did it get wound up in the first place?"

The only answer to that question is - by a Creator

[ETL]

I like it and can't look at the photos of deep space without feeling a sense of reaffirmation of God.

"The Hubble Ultra Deep Field, or HUDF, is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 24, 2003 through January 16, 2004. It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken in visible light, looking back approximately 13 billion years, and it will be used to search for galaxies that existed between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang.The HUDF image was taken in a section of the sky with a low density of bright stars in the near-field, allowing much better viewing of dimmer, more distant objects. The image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies.

Located southwest of Orion in the Southern-Hemisphere constellation Fornax, the image covers 11.0 square arcminutes. This is just one-tenth the diameter of the full moon as viewed from Earth, smaller than a 1 mm by 1 mm square of paper held 1 meter away, and equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. The image is oriented such that the upper left corner points toward north (-46.4°) on the celestial sphere."

Click here to enlarge:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field

[Paleo Conservative]

Considering he was around 2 centuries before Darwin published Origin of the Species, that's not surprising.

[DManA]

I've often maintained a faith that God created the physical universe which we live in, and left it to us to figure out how it all works.

I agree. But you need courage and faith to follow where the evidence points.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Gondring]

Thanks for the ping!

What I find amusing about this article is that it totally ignores the fact that it was Creationists who criticized Steno and his ideas, saying they were preposterous because they spoke of multiple episodes of orogeny, etc.

[dr_lew]

If most EVOs don’t know this, it’s no fault of the late great EVO, Stephen Jay Gould, who devoted an eight page section of his 1987 EVO potboiler, TIME’S ARROW / TIME’S CYCLE to the subject line, “Burnet and Steno as Intellectual Partners in the Light of Time’s Arrow and Time’s Cycle”.

That’s Thomas Burnet - ever heard of him? His SACRED THEORY OF THE EARTH, whose frontpiece graces Gould’s cover, is very much the template of 20th century creationism. In fact Gould offered a pomo style defense of Burnet against his later characterization as an anti-science bad guy.

[goodusername]

“Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist (most Evos don’t know this)”

—Really? I kinda thought that was common knowledge. heh

Steno does imply, however, that the reason he believes in a young earth was because of Scripture, not his study of geology: “In regard to the first aspect of the Earth Scripture and Nature agree in this, that all things were covered with water; how and when this aspect began, and how long it lasted, Nature says not, Scripture relates.”
(That “all things were covered in water” is a bit of a reach from his geologic studies in Tuscany!)

Most of Steno’s “discoveries” can be found in the prior work of Robert Hooke (who believed in an old earth) “Discourses of Earthquakes” (although it wasn’t published until after Steno’s work).

And there’s some evidence that Steno was familiar with Hooke’s work and plagiarized it. But oh well. :-)
(After Hooke read Steno’s work, he believed that the Royal Society’s secretary delivered his ideas to Steno).

I will give Steno credit though for one of the greatest titles of all time for a publication: “Preliminary discourse to a dissertation on a solid body naturally contained within a solid”
:-)

[DallasMike]

What I find amusing about this article is that it totally ignores the fact that it was Creationists who criticized Steno and his ideas, saying they were preposterous because they spoke of multiple episodes of orogeny, etc.

The Journal of Creation is not exactly known for its high quality. It's disappointing because Christians should be committed to upholding extraordinary standards, regardless of their field of work. All work that we do -- whether doctor, farmer, floorsweep, or president -- should be done as if we were working directly for God. Low standards hurt the Christian cause.