Creationism - National Center for Science Education

Between the first creation, indicated by the first verse, and the description of chaos of the second verse,
there occurred a cosmic catastrophe, an appalling cataclysm of worlds, whereby not only our earth was
broken up into fragments, but even the solar system was displaced... [1926:55]
Though Bartoli stresses his scientific credentials and presents archeological evidence (his
book is subtitle “In the Light of the Recently Discovered Babylonian Documents,” which
he claims support the Gap Theory), he spends much time on theological arguments,
describing in detail the creation of angels, the rebellion of Satan and his fallen angels, and
their corruption of the pre-Adamic world.
Clarence Benson argued for the Gap Theory in The Earth—The Theatre of the
Universe (1929). A passing star fragmented the planet of which asteroids are remnants;
this catastrophe was associated with Satan’s Fall. Benson also, however, strongly
endorsed Price’s Flood Geology. Gerald Winrod, founder of the Defenders of the
Christian Faith, included the Gap Theory in Science, Christ and the Bible (1929). Citing
alleged instances of out-of-order fossils, Winrod declared that “When the theory of
evolution hits the rocks of geology, it goes to pieces.”
Harry Rimmer, the flamboyant Bible-science proselytizer, was the major Gap
Theory advocate during the time of the Scopes Trial and for some years afterwards. As
already noted, Rimmer debated William B. Riley, another leading anti-evolutionist of the
period, on Gap Theory versus Day-Age creationism (Riley and Rimmer 1929), and he
invoked the Gap Theory to refute the accusation leveled in the “lawsuit against the Bible”
(Rimmer 1956) that science had proved the Bible wrong by showing the earth is
immensely old. Although he campaigned vigorously for the Gap Theory, Rimmer also
paid deference to George McCready Price’s Flood Geology (1936:238-242), apparently
not seeing any contradiction between explaining geology and paleontology in terms of
Noah’s Flood and also in terms of a pre-Adamic creation. Rimmer tried to maintain a
literal interpretation of Noah’s Flood, as well as of Joshua’s Long Day, Jonah and the
Whale, and other biblical stories, providing “scientific” explanations for them.
DAY-AGE THEORY
The Day-Age Theory of creationism was the Gap Theory’s chief rival during the
nineteenth century and much of this century—until young-earth creationism became
popular again. It had various precedents in earlier centuries.
The fourth-century theologian St. Augustine apparently maintained that creation
was ex nihilo (not then the accepted view), but also argued that the process of creation
was progressive, unfolding over time. (For this reason, strict creationists sometimes
accuse him of being a protoevolutionist.) In any case, Augustine held that the ‘days’ of
creation were not the same as our literal days. “It is more than probable that the seven
days of Genesis were entirely different in their duration from those which now mark the
succession of time...” (Augustine, quoted in H. Clark 1977:40). Augustine denied that
we could assign any definite period (i.e. a thousand years, a popular interpretation) to the
creation days. He viewed such scriptural statements not as literal facts, but as allegorical
truth, and inspired the medieval tradition of allegorical interpretation of the Bible.
This medieval attitude relegated inquiry about the natural world—science—to a
strictly subordinate position under theology, with its search for allegorical meaning
behind natural phenomena, which were but symbols capable of revealing biblical truth,