The Fossil “Record” — The Scriptural Record
From Melvin A. Cook & M. Garfield Cook, Science & Mormonism: Correlations, Conflicts and Conciliations (SLC: Deseret Book, 1967,
1973).
Page 91 — Even if one does not wish to accept the literal
interpretation of the scriptures regarding the time scale of the
creation, the concept of a “special creation” (agreed upon
apparently by all LDS leaders) does not permit one to connect the
present mortality of man and life on the earth with any form of
mortal life that may have existed on the earth prior to the “fall.”
In other words, one cannot logically claim to believe both in the
concept of organic evolution (the “long time” alternative) and
that of a “special creation.” Lehi, in his teachings to his son
Jacob, proclaimed that the life in the Garden of Eden was one in
which there was no death or change.
And now behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would
not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden
of Eden. And all things which were created must have
remained in the same state in which they were after they
were created; and they must have remained forever, and had
no end. (2 Ne 2:22)
The premortal earth was a terrestrial (or paradisiacal) one to
which the renewal of the Tenth Article of Faith refers and in
which reproduction and death were unknown. Such a state of life
could hardly have filled the sedimentary rocks of the earth with
fossils; they must have been deposited either by other creations
then extinct or else (as seems more reasonable) by the posterity
of those creatures that participated with Adam and Eve in the fall.
Page 96 — Scripturally, the universe is ageless, from everlasting
to everlasting. Age is thus meaningful only as regards specific
stages in a changing, yet never ending universe. The real
prehistory of the earth pertains to its existence in a form or forms
unknown prior to the remodeling process known as “the
creation.”
A truly meaningful age is thus that of mortal life on the earth. It
began on the “earth” and in the “seas” nearly six thousand years
ago according to the literal interpretation of biblical history and
modern revelation.
There are many in the Church who attempt to correlate the
concepts of uniformitarianism and evolution with the doctrines of
Mormonism on the age of man. Such a correlation does not seem
to be justified in the light of modern revelation.
Page 97 — The scriptures are literal; they tell the true story of the
creation and the time scale placed upon it by the Lord — beyond
such eminent testimony there is really no need to go.
In the following chapter, the various dating methods proposed by
science are considered and correlations drawn wherever possible.
It is not strange that when discrepancies arise there is a tendency
to suppose that scripture is wrong or merely figurative and
modern thought is right?…
Page 98 — Science has devised many elaborate methods of
dating in an attempt to discover the secret of age. Conventional
applications of these various dating methods have led scientists in
general to associate the formation of the earth with a single event
which created the universe supposedly 5.0 billion years ago.
Despite the general, apparently overwhelming acceptance of this
theory in the scientific world, there is yet much evidence which
should be considered carefully that suggests a youthful earth.
Geologists have developed a rather elaborate time scale based
upon the various rock formations of the earth. It is supposed to be
firmly established o an observational rather than a conceptual
basis thus permitting scientists to assert an authoritative position
over theologians. They claim to have “calibrated” the ages of
these rock formations by radioactive “time clocks.” The
functional processes of each of these chronometers are similar
except in one important detail — they do not tell the same time.
In fact, one may justly doubt if the same “time scale” in use today
will be used ten years from now.…
Page 104 — “Superposition” is the concept that the various
sedimentary formations, best known by the names given to the
so-called geologic periods, were laid down one on top of the
other in an orderly time sequence. This concept is a seemingly
obvious and basic geologic principle. It has been used to proved
the “relative time scale” for the deposition of the sediments.
When confronted by difficulties in their absolute time scale,
geologists usually fall back on the principle of superposition, and
its implied relative (though long) time scale.
Another important concept of modern geology is that of “fossil
succession.” If one desires to accept uniformitarianism and the
doctrine of organic evolution, perhaps the most impelling
argument supporting a tremendously long geologic time scale is
the observed fossil record and its correlation with geologic
formations or the “geologic column.” This remarkable record
shows, as a rule, but definitely not without exception, a uniform
and sequential change of fossil types or species ranging from the
most primitive single-cell (marine) types at the bottom of the
geologic column to the most highly developed fossil species at
the top. Interpreted by the doctrines of uniformitarianism and
organic evolution, this record implies long periods of geologic
time, especially in view of the observed, very slow changes in the
character of any particular one of the many species under
observations. For instance, while there has been no clear and
demonstrable speciation (or multiplication of species) during
recorded history, many character changes have been observed
within many of the species. Evolutionary changes can and do
take place even within a period of only a few hundred years
under forced and directed genetic experiments. Thus, the fossil
record, the geologic column, and observed rates of change in
species have been interpreted to imply great ages. Superposition,
uniformitarianism and organic evolution are, however, the
postulated keys to these interpretations of the geologic time scale.
The geologic column, the fossil record, radioactivity and
sedimentation, without these presupposed keys or hypotheses
(which have been tenaciously superimposed [page 105] upon
these otherwise natural phenomena), might actually tell an
entirely different story of prehistory.…
Page 158 — Joseph F. Smith, sixth President of the Church, was
a literalist. It was under his presidency that organic evolution was
condemned by official proclamation.…
Docs>Handouts> “Evolution_Fossil_MACook.doc” Page 1 of 2
Page 185 — In conclusion, from the scientific vantage point one
finds no actual facts, only ambiguous and disputable theory in the
famous radiological time clocks [e.g., carbon-14 dating,
potassium-argon, etc.] to support the interpretation that the “day
of the Lord” is an “indefinite” (but long) “period of time.” One
the other hand, some real and well documented facts have been
pointed out which, to be sure, do not establish but, provide
support of the literal interpretation that a “day of the Lord” is
“one thousand years” of our time. [See Abraham 3:4; 5:13;
Facsimile #2, Fig. 1 explanation.]
Page 192 — ANOMALIES IN THE FOSSIL RECORD provide
another important proof that the story of historical geology is
[page 193] far from satisfactory. In the first place fossils
themselves are anomalies that strike at the very foundation of
historical geology, namely, the doctrine of uniformitarianism. It
is well recognized today that fossils are, in fact, not the result of
ordinary circumstances. Conditions of uniformity are not of the
nature as to yield fossils, in general, especially of the larger and
more advanced types. It is sudden burial, for instance, under
antiseptic conditions in which air is excluded and mircobic action
prevented, that is expected to yield the best fossil record.…
Page 201 — [Picture of a fossil which goes vertically through
more than 9 layers of sedimentation.]
Page 238 — These are but a few of the many arguments that may
be advanced in support of the theory that the Flood [of Noah] did
indeed come down from the “north countries” as implied in
modern revelation. That is was not merely a flood of water is
clearly recorded in its history “written in the rocks.” The reason
that Noachian Flood explanations for fossilization have not been
accepted by geologists may be largely that they did not recognize
the possibility that a flood triggered by avalanching ice sheets
(fluid-greased and glacier-driven), mountain and sedimentary
strata overthrusts, could have caused sudden changes in the
whole sedimentary structure of the earth. In fact, the strata
change was of such a drastic nature as to engulf the entire
biosphere and produce suddenly most of the fossil record
including almost the entire present fossil fuel inventory.…
Another remarkable contribution was made by John Williams,
mineral surveyor, F.S.S.A. in his 1789 work entitled, The Natural
History of the Mineral Kingdom. Nelson considered this work so
important that he devoted an entire chapter largely to quotations
from it dealing firstly with field observations of Williams
concerning coal formation and secondly his [page 262] concept
of how coal formed.…
Page 263 — At the beginning of the eighteenth century the most
common cause assigned to the deposition of fossils was the
Deluge. The period 1800 to 1850 was described as one of
“Waning”; only for the past hundred years [150+ now] has
Lyell’s uniformitarianism held sway. But most scientists may
regard this as conclusively in favor of the latter theory since
science has progressed so tremendously in the past century. More
likely, we have experienced a strange interlude in the history of
geologic thought; the time has come for us to reexamine with
greater objectivity the painstaking and brilliant researches of men
like Woodward and Williams. It may be found that the new
model of the earth proposed in PEM [Prehistory and Earth
Models], i.e., the ice cap model of the division of the earth
[continental drift; tectonic plates; etc.] may be filled in with great
detail simply by reference to the work of Noachian Flood [page
264] geologists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Only
the concept of ice sheets and their tremendous forces suitable for
overthrusting, mountain building and shifting seemed to have
escaped them.
Page 261 — Byron C. Nelson, Th. M. [The Deluge Story in Stone
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1931)], wrote an
interesting and informative history of the thinking concerning the
origin of the fossil record and the changes in the theory from time
to time. It describes also the remarkable work of the renowned
Professor John Woodward, M.D., Cambridge University, a close
friend of sir Isaac Newton “besides whose body Woodward’s lies
in Westminster Abbey.” Woodward’s works entitled An Essay
Toward a Natural Theory of the Earth and History of Fossils are
remarkable for their penetrating insight. He was the one most
responsible for convincing the world once and for all that fossils
were not merely freaks of nature or tricks played on mankind by
the Creator, but that they were the remains of alteration forms of
life that had existed on the earth earlier in its history. Woodward
was thoroughly convinced and developed strong evidence
therefor [sic] that the Flood caused the fossil record. It was also
his suggestion that t the time of the Deluge the rocks of the earth
(referring to the sedimentary rocks because he mentioned “hard
rocks, marble, and so on”) were “dissolved and taken up in the
Flood waters.” By “dissolution” he meant simply slurried or
fluidized not by “chemical dissolution” but rather by a
“mechanical disintegration.” He attributed stratification to the
“importance of gravity.” He was a true slurry mechanism.
Docs>Handouts> “Evolution_Fossil_MACook.doc” Page 2 of 2