{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_25975/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_25975","id":"gutenberg_25975","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25975","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Environmental Issues","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Deluge"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Stephen Blundell and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from scans of public domain works at the\nUniversity of Michigan's Making of America collection.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n         THE DELUGE\n\n           IN THE\n\n  LIGHT OF MODERN SCIENCE.\n\n\n        A Discourse.\n\n\n             BY\n       WILLIAM DENTON.\n\n\n     WELLESLEY, MASS.:\n DENTON PUBLISHING COMPANY.\n           1882.\n\n\n\n\nTHE DELUGE IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN SCIENCE.\n\n\nIf the Bible is God's book, we ought to know it. If the Creator of the\nuniverse has spoken to man, how important that we should listen to his\nvoice and obey his instructions! On the other hand, if the Bible is not\nGod's book, we ought to know it. Why should we go through the world with\na lie in our right hand, dupes of the ignorant men who preceded us? It\ncan never be for our soul's benefit to cherish a falsehood.\n\nScience is, perhaps, the best test that we can apply to decide the\nquestion. Science is really a knowledge of what Nature has done, and is\ndoing; and since the upholders of the divinity of the Bible believe that\nit proceeded from the Author of nature, if their faith is true, it\ncannot possibly disagree with what science teaches.\n\nScience is a fiery furnace, that has consumed a thousand delusions, and\nmust consume all that remain. We cast into it astrology and alchemy, and\ntheir ashes barely remain to tell of their existence. Old notions of the\nearth and heavens went in, and vanished as their dupes gazed upon them.\nOld religions, old gods, have become as the incense that was burned\nbefore their altars.\n\nI purpose to try the Bible in its searching fire. Fear not, my brother:\nit can but burn the straw and stubble; if gold, it will shine as bright\nafter the fiery ordeal as before, and reflect as perfectly the image of\ntruth.\n\nThe Bible abounds with marvellous stories,--stories that we should at\nonce reject from their intrinsic improbability, not to say\nimpossibility, if we should find them in any other book. But, among all\nthe stories, there is none that equals the account of the deluge, as\ngiven in the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis. It towers\nabove the rest as Mount Washington does above the New-England hills;\nand, as travellers delight to climb the loftiest peaks, I suppose that\nmany would be pleased to examine this lofty story, and see how the world\nof truth and actuality looks from its summit.\n\nAccording to the account, in less than two thousand years after God had\ncreated all things, and pronounced them very good, he became thoroughly\ndissatisfied with every living thing, and determined to destroy them\nwith the earth. He thus expresses himself: \"I will destroy man, whom I\nhave created, from the face of the earth,--both man and beast, and the\ncreeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I\nhave made them.\" Again he says to Noah, \"The end of all flesh is come\nbefore me; for the earth is filled with violence through them, and\nbehold I will destroy them with the earth.\"\n\nWhy should the beasts, birds, and creeping things be destroyed? What had\nthe larks, the doves, and the bob-o-links done? What had the squirrels\nand the tortoises been guilty of, that they should be destroyed?\n\nHe proceeds to inform Noah how he will do this: \"And behold I, even I,\ndo bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein\nis the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the\nearth shall die.\" And we are subsequently informed that \"every thing\nthat was in the dry land died.\" But why not every thing in the sea? Were\nthe dogs sinners, and the dog-fish saints? Had the sheep been more\nguilty than the sharks? Had the pigeons become utterly corrupt, and the\npikes remained perfectly innocent? It may be, that the apparent\nimpossibility of drowning them by a flood suggested to the writer of the\nstory the necessity of saving them alive.\n\nBut Noah was righteous; and God determined to save him and his family,\neight persons, and by their instrumentality to save alive animals\nsufficient to stock the world again after its destruction.\n\nTo do this, Noah was commanded to build an ark, three hundred cubits\nlong, fifty broad, and thirty high. It was to be made with three\nstories, and furnished with one door, and one window a cubit wide. Into\nthis ark were to be taken two of every sort of living thing, and of\nclean beasts and of birds seven of every sort, male and female, and food\nsufficient for them all.\n\nThere are differences of opinion about the length of the cubit: most\nprobably it was about eighteen inches; but taking it at twenty-two\ninches, the largest estimate that I believe theologians have made, the\nark was then five hundred and fifty feet long, ninety-one feet eight\ninches broad, and fifty-five feet high. Leaving space for the floors,\nwhich would need to be very strong, each story was about seventeen feet\nhigh; and the total cubical contents of the ark were about one hundred\nand two thousand cubic yards. Scott, in his commentary, makes it as\nsmall as sixty-nine thousand one hundred and twenty yards; but the\nnecessity for room was not as well understood in his day. Each floor of\nthe ark contained five thousand six hundred and one square yards, and\nthe three floors sixteen thousand eight hundred and three square yards,\nthe total standing-room of the ark.\n\nInto this were to be taken fourteen of each kind of fowl of the air or\nbird. How many kinds or species of birds are there? When Adam Clarke\nwrote his commentary, two thousand three hundred and seventy-two species\nhad been recognized. Ornithology was then but in its infancy, and man's\nknowledge of living forms was very limited. Lesson, according to Hugh\nMiller, enumerates the birds at six thousand two hundred and sixty-six\nspecies; Gray, in his \"Genera of Birds,\" estimates the number on the\nglobe at eight thousand. Let us not crowd Noah, but take the six\nthousand two hundred and sixty-six species of Lesson. Fourteen of each\nof these would give us eighty-seven thousand seven hundred and\ntwenty-four birds,--from the humming-bird, the little flying jewel, to\nthe ostrich that fans the heated air of the desert,--or over five for\nevery yard of standing-room in the ark. If spaces were left for the\nattendants to pass among them, to attend to the supply of their daily\nwants, the birds alone would crowd the ark.\n\nBut, beside the birds, there were to be taken into the ark two of every\nsort of unclean beast and fourteen of every sort of clean beast. The\nmost recent zoological authorities enumerate two thousand and\nsixty-seven species of mammals, or, as they are commonly called, beasts.\nOf cetacea, or whale-like mammals, sixty-five; ruminantia, or\ncud-chewers, one hundred and seventy-seven; pachydermata, or\nthick-skinned mammals, such as the horse, hog, and elephant, forty-one;\nedentata, like the sloth and ant-eater, thirty-five; rodentia, or\ngnawers, such as the rat, squirrel, and beaver, six hundred and\nseventeen; carnivora, or flesh-eaters, four hundred and forty-six;\ncheiroptera, or bats, three hundred and twenty-eight; quadrumana, or\nmonkeys, two hundred and twenty-one; and marsupialia, or pouched\nmammals, like the opossum and kangaroo, one hundred and thirty-seven. If\nwe leave out the cetacea, that live in the water, and the cud-chewers,\nwhich are the clean beasts, we have one thousand eight hundred and\ntwenty-five species; and male and female of these, a total of three\nthousand six hundred and fifty.\n\nBut, besides these, there were to be taken into the ark fourteen of\nevery kind of clean beast. And what are clean beasts? The scriptural\nanswer is, animals that divide the hoof and chew the cud; and of these\nat least one hundred and seventy-seven species are known. Fourteen of\neach of these added, make a total of six thousand one hundred and\ntwenty-eight mammals, from the mouse to the elephant. These beasts could\nnot be piled one upon another like cord-wood; they could not be\npromiscuously crowded together. The sheep would need careful protection\nfrom the lions, tigers, and wolves; the elephant and other ponderous\nbeasts would require stalls of great thickness; much room would be\nrequired to enable them to obtain needful exercise, and for the\nattendants to supply them with food and water; and a vessel of the size\nof the ark would be taxed to provide for these beasts alone; and to\ncrowd in, and preserve alive, beasts and birds, was an absolute\nimpossibility.\n\nBut there are of reptiles six hundred and fifty-seven species; and Noah\nwas to take into the ark two of every sort of creeping thing. Two\nhundred of these reptiles are, however, aquatic: hence water would not\nseriously affect them; but crocodiles, lizards, iguanas, tree-frogs,\nhorned frogs, thunder-snakes, chicken-snakes, brittlesnakes,\nrattlesnakes, copperheads, asps, cobras de capello, whose bite is\ncertain death, and a host of others, must be provided for. It would not\ndo to allow these disagreeable individuals to crawl about the ark; and\nnine hundred and fourteen of them would require considerable space,\nwhether they could obtain it or not.\n\nBy this time, the ark is doubly crowded; but its living cargo is not yet\ncompleted. A dense cloud of insects, and a vast army destitute of wings,\nmake their appearance, and clamor for admission. The number of\narticulates that must have been provided for is estimated at seven\nhundred and fifty thousand species,--from the butterflies of Brazil,\nfourteen inches from the tip of one wing to the tip of the other, to the\nalmost invisible gnat, that dances in the summer's beam. Ants, beetles,\nflies, bugs, fleas, mosquitoes, wasps, bees, moths, butterflies,\nspiders, scorpions, grasshoppers, locusts, myriapods, canker-worms,\nwriggling, crawling, creeping, flying, male and female, here they come,\nand all must be provided for.\n\nNor are these the last. The air-breathing land-snails, of which we know\nfour thousand six hundred species, could never have survived a twelve\nmonths' soaking; and they must therefore be cared for. The nine thousand\ntwo hundred of these add no little to the discomfort of the\ntrebly-crowded ark.\n\nNow let the flood come: all are lodged in the ark of safety, and are\nready for a year's voyage. But we forget: the ark has not yet received\none-half of its cargo. The command given unto Noah was, \"Take thou unto\nthee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it\nshall be for food for thee and for them;\" and we are expressly told that\n\"according to all that God commanded Noah, so did he.\"\n\nFood for how long? The flood began in the \"sixth hundredth year of\nNoah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month.\"\nNoah, his family, and the animals, went in seven days before this time,\nand left the ark the six hundred and first year of Noah's life, the\nsecond month, and the twenty-seventh day of the month. They were\ntherefore in the ark for one year and seventeen days.\n\nWhat a quantity of hay would be required, the material most easily\nobtained! An elephant eats four hundred pounds of hay in twenty-four\nhours. Since there are two species of elephants, the African and the\nIndian, there must have been four elephants in the ark; and, supposing\nthem to live upon hay, they would require three hundred tons. There are\nat least seven species of the rhinoceros; and fourteen of these, at\nseventy-five tons each, would consume no less than one thousand and\nfifty tons. The two thousand four hundred and seventy-eight clean\nbeasts,--oxen, elk, giraffes, camels, deer, antelope, sheep, goats, with\nthe horses, zebras, asses, hippopotami, rodents, and marsupials--could\nnot have required less than four thousand five hundred tons; making a\ntotal of five thousand eight hundred and fifty tons. A ton of hay\noccupies about eighteen cubic yards; and the quantity of hay required\nwould fill a hundred and five thousand three hundred cubic yards of\nspace, or more than the entire capacity of the ark.\n\nIf these animals were fed on other substances than hay, the extra\ndifficulty of obtaining and preserving those substances would\ncounterbalance any advantage that might be gained by the economy of\nspace.\n\nA vast quantity of grain would be necessary for thousands of birds,\nrodents, marsupials, and other animals; and large granaries would be\nrequired for its storage.\n\nWhat flesh would be needed for the lions, tigers, leopards, ounces,\nwild-cats, wolves, bears, hyenas, jackals, dogs, and foxes, martens,\nweasels, eagles, condors, vultures, buzzards, falcons, hawks, kites,\nowls, as well as crocodiles and serpents! Not one but would eat its\nweight in a month, and some much more. A full-grown lion eats fifteen\npounds of flesh in a day: there are two species of lions; and the four\nwould eat twenty-two thousand pounds in a year. There would be, at\nleast, three thousand animals feeding upon flesh; and, if we calculate\nthat they averaged two pounds of flesh a day, this would give a total of\nmore than two million and a quarter pounds of flesh to be stored up and\ndistributed. And since dried, salted, or smoked meat would not answer,\nthis flesh must have been taken into the ark alive. It would be equal to\nmore than thirty thousand sheep at seventy-five pounds each; a great\naddition to the original cargo, and necessitating an extra quantity of\nhay for their food, till their turn came to be eaten.\n\nFish would be required for the otters, minks, pelicans, of which there\nare eight species, and must therefore have been fifty-six individuals in\nthe ark; one hundred and five gulls, for there are fifteen species; one\nhundred and twelve cormorants, forty-nine gannets, one hundred and forty\nterns, two hundred and eighty-seven kingfishers, beside storks, herons,\nspoonbills, penguins, albatrosses, and a host of others; mollusks for\nthe oyster-catcher, turnstone, and other birds.\n\nThe fish could not be preserved after death in any way to answer for\nfood, and must therefore have been alive: large tanks for the purpose of\nkeeping them would take up considerable of the ark's space. The water in\nsuch tanks would soon become unfitted for the respiration of the fish,\nand there must have been some provision, by air-pumps or otherwise, for\ncharging the water with the air essential to their existence.\n\nMany animals live upon insects; and this must have been the most\ndifficult part of the provision to procure. There are nineteen species\nof goatsuckers; and there must have been in the ark two hundred and\nsixty-six individuals. These birds feed upon flies, moths, beetles, and\nother insects. What an innumerable multitude must have been provided for\nthe goatsuckers alone! But there are a hundred and thirty-seven species\nof fly-catchers; and Noah must have had a fly-catcher family of nineteen\nhundred and eighteen individuals to supply with appropriate food. There\nare thirty-seven species of bee-eaters; and there must have been five\nhundred and eighteen of these birds to supply with bees. A very large\napiary would be required to supply their needs. But, beside these,\ninsects for swallows, swifts, martins, shrikes, thrushes, orioles,\nsparrows, the beautiful trogans and jacamars, moles, shrews, hedgehogs,\nand a multitude of others, too numerous to mention, but not too numerous\nto eat. Ants, also, for the ant-eaters of America, the aard-vark of\nAfrica, and the pangolin of Asia. The great ant-eater of South America\nis an animal sometimes measuring eight feet in length. It lives\nexclusively on ants, which it procures by tearing open their hills with\nits hooked claws, and then drawing its long tongue, which is covered\nwith glutinous saliva, over the swarms which rush out to defend their\ndwelling. Many bushels of ants would be needed for the pair of\nant-eaters before the ark landed on Ararat. How were all the insects\ncaught, and kept for the use of all these animals for more than a year?\nA hundred men could not catch a sufficient number in six months. And, if\ncaught, how could they be preserved, together with the original stock of\ninsects necessary to supply the world after the deluge? Some insects eat\nonly bark; others, resinous secretions, the pith, solid wood, leaves,\nsap in the veins, as the aphid, flowers, pollen, and honey. Wood, bark,\nresin, and honey might have been supplied; but how could green leaves,\nsap, flowers and pollen, be furnished to those insects absolutely\nrequiring them for existence? Thirty species of insects feed on the\nnettle, but not one of them could live on dried nettles. Roesel\ncalculates that two hundred species subsist on the oak; but the oak must\nbe in a growing condition to supply them with food. In no other way,\nthen, could the insects have been preserved alive than by large\ngreen-houses, the heat so applied as to suit the plants of both\ntemperate and tropical climates, and the insects so distributed among\nthem, that each could obtain its appropriate nourishment.\n\nFruit would be necessary for the four hundred and forty-two monkeys, for\nthe plantain-eaters, the fruit-pigeons of the Spice Islands that feed on\nnutmegs, for the toucans and the flocks of parrots, parroquets,\ncockatoos, and other fruit-eating birds. As they did not know how to can\nfruit in those days, and dried fruit would be altogether unsuitable,\nthere must have been a large green-house for raising all manner of fruit\nnecessary for the frugivorous multitude.\n\n_How were the various animals obtained?_ The command given to Noah was,\n\"Two of every sort shalt thou _bring_ into the ark.\"\n\nAnimals, as is now well known, belong to limited centres, outside of\nwhich they are never found in a natural state; and naturalists know that\nthese centres were established ages before the time when the deluge is\nsupposed to have occurred.\n\nThus, Hugh Miller, in his \"Testimony of the Rocks,\" says, \"We now know\nthat every great continent has its own peculiar fauna; that the original\ncentres of distribution must have been, not one, but many; further, that\nthe areas or circles around these centres must have been occupied by\ntheir pristine animals in ages long anterior to that of the Noachian\nDeluge; nay, that in even the latter geologic ages they were preceded in\nthem by animals of the same general type. There are fourteen such areas,\nor provinces, enumerated by the later naturalists;\" and Cuvier, quoted\nby Miller, says, \"The great continents contain species peculiar to each;\ninsomuch, that whenever large countries, of this description, have been\ndiscovered, which their situation had kept isolated from the rest of the\nworld, the class of quadrupeds which they contained has been found\nextremely different from any that had existed elsewhere. Thus, when the\nSpaniards first penetrated into South America, they did not find a\nsingle species of quadruped the same as any of Europe, Asia, or Africa.\"\n\nThe white bear is never found except in the arctic regions; the great\ngrizzly bear is only found in the neighborhood of the Rocky Mountains.\nNearly all the species of mammals found in Australia are confined to\nthat country, as the wingless birds of New Zealand are confined to that,\nand the sloth, armadillo, and other animals, to South America.\n\nA journey to the polar regions would be necessary to obtain the white\nbear, the musk-ox, of which seven would be required, since it is a clean\nbeast; seven reindeer, likewise; the white fox, the polar hare, the\nlemming, and seven of each species of cormorant, gannet, penguin,\npetrel, and gull, some of which are as large as eagles, as well as\nmergansers, geese, and ducks, certain species of which are only found in\nthe frigid zone. Noah or his agents must have discovered Greenland and\nNorth America thousands of years before Columbus was born: they must\nhave preceded Behring, Parry, Ross, Kane, and Hayes in exploring the\nArctic regions. They searched the ice-floes and numerous islands of the\nArctic seas, snow-shoed, over the frozen _tundras_ of Siberia, to be\ncertain that no living thing escaped them; then, after catching and\ncaging all the animals, conveyed them, with all manner of food necessary\nfor their sustenance, together with ice to temper the heat of the\nclimate to which they were for more than a year to be exposed, returned\nto the nearest port, and, after a toilsome journey from the sea-coast to\nArmenia, arrived at their destination. How many of these animals would\nsurvive the journey? and, of those that did, how many would survive the\nchange of climate and habits?\n\nAnother party must have visited temperate America; traversed New England\nin its length and breadth, forded wide streams, made their way through\nunbroken wildernesses, traversed the Great Lakes, roamed over the Rocky\nMountains, and secured the black bear, cinnamon bear, wapiti or Canadian\nstag, the moose, American deer, antelope, mountain sheep, buffalo,\nopossum, rattlesnake, copperhead, and an innumerable multitude of other\nanimals--insects birds, reptiles, and mammals, that are only to be found\nin the temperate regions of America.\n\nA voyage to South America must have been made to obtain tapirs, pumas,\npeccaries, sloths, ant-eaters, armadillos, fourteen each of the llama,\nalpaca, and vicuna, beside monkeys, birds, and insects innumerable. A\nvessel nearly as large as \"The Great Eastern\" must have been employed,\nor a number of smaller ones, to accommodate the collectors, the animals,\nand food for a voyage across the Atlantic. There must have been, at\nleast, a thousand men, wandering through the woods of Brazil, along the\nvalley of the Amazon, the Orinoco, and the La Plata; paddling up the\nstreams, scaling the mountains, roaming over the pampas, climbing the\ntall trees, turning over every stone and log, and exploring every nook,\nto discover the snails, bugs, insects, worms, reptiles, and other\nanimals indigenous to South America, from the Isthmus to\nTierra-del-fuego.\n\nThere must have been obtained four elephants, for there are two species,\nthe Asiatic and the Indian; fourteen rhinoceroses, one of which is found\nonly in South Africa, another in the island of Java, and a third in\nSumatra; two hippopotami, and possibly four, for some authorities say\nthere are two species. Fourteen giraffes, since they are clean beasts,\nmust have been caught and driven from Central Africa (many more, indeed,\nmust have been caught, that the required number might reach the ark and\nbe preserved); twenty-eight camels, two hundred and eighty oxen (for\nthere are twenty species, and they are clean); and no less than thirteen\nhundred and eighty-six deer and antelope, of which there are ninety-nine\nspecies recognized: these to be collected in various parts of Europe,\nAsia, Northern and Southern Africa, and America.\n\nNew Zealand must have been visited to obtain its wingless birds;\nMauritius for its dodo, then living; Australia for its marsupials and\nother peculiar animals; and every large island, and most of the small\nones, to obtain those forms of life that are only to be found in each.\nFrom the island of Celebes, they must have taken the eighty species of\nbirds that are confined to it, which would require them to catch, cage,\nfeed, and convey eleven hundred and twenty specimens: a no small job of\nitself. Ten men that could accomplish that, and carry them safe to\nArmenia, would do all that men could do in ten years. From the\nPhilippine Islands, the seventy-three species of hawks, parrots, and\npigeons, peculiar to them; which would require, since fourteen of every\nkind of bird were to be taken into the ark, no less than one thousand\nand twenty-two specimens. From New Guinea, and the neighboring islands,\ntwo hundred and fifty-two of the magnificent birds of paradise, since\nthere are eighteen species.\n\nA faint idea of the difficulties encountered and overcome by Noah's\nagents may be gathered from what Wallace, in his recent work on the\nMalay Archipelago, informs us respecting these birds of paradise. \"Five\nvoyages to different parts of the district they inhabit, each occupying\nin its preparation and execution the larger part of a year, produced me\nonly five species out of the fourteen known to exist in the New-Guinea\ndistrict.\" If it took Wallace, with all the assistance that he had from\nvarious officials, five years to obtain five species, represented by\ndead birds, how long did it take Noah's agents to obtain eighteen\nspecies represented by two hundred and fifty-two live birds? Wallace\ncould only obtain two alive, and for these he had to pay five hundred\ndollars.\n\nIf the antediluvian sinners were any thing like the modern ones, Noah\nmust have been richer than the Rothschilds, or he never could have\nobtained their services; which he must have done, or it could never be\ntruthfully said, \"according to all that God commanded him, so did he.\"\n\nThe collection of the land-snails alone would be no small tax.\nSeventy-four are peculiar to Great Britain: hence there must have been a\nhundred and forty-eight snails collected from that island. Six hundred\nspecies are found in Southern Europe alone, and twelve hundred must have\nbeen collected from there; eighty in Sicily, ten in Corsica, two hundred\nand sixty-four in the Madeira Islands, a hundred and twenty in the\nCanary Islands, twenty-six in St. Helena, sixty-three in Southern\nAfrica, eighty-eight in Madagascar, a hundred and twelve in Ceylon, a\nhundred in New Zealand, and others on every large and some of the small\nislands of the globe. The world must have been circumnavigated many\ntimes before the vessel of Magellan was built, and every island visited\nand ransacked ages before the time of Captain Cook. But it seems\nsurprising, since these voyages must have been performed by the sinful\nantediluvians, that they did not save themselves in their ships when the\nflood came; for vessels that could perform such voyages would certainly\nhave survived the flood more readily than the clumsy ark.\n\nBut was it really done? A thousand men in ten years, with all the\nappliances of modern art,--steamboats, railroads, canals, coaches, and\nexpress companies,--could not accomplish it in ten years; nor ten times\nthe number of men keep all the animals alive in one spot for one year,\nif they were collected together.\n\n\"But,\" says the Christian, \"Noah never did collect them: no intelligent\nperson in this day ever supposes that he did.\" What then? \"The Bible\nexpressly declares that 'they went in unto Noah into the ark.' By\ninstinct, such as leads the swallow to take its distant flight at the\napproach of winter, they came from all parts of the globe to the ark of\nsafety.\"\n\nIt is true that one account does say that they came in unto Noah, for\nthere are two very different stories of the deluge mixed up in those\nchapters of Genesis; but, although flying birds might perform such a\nfeat as going twelve thousand miles to the ark, which would be necessary\nfor some, how could other animals get there? It would be impossible even\nfor some birds. How could the ostriches of Africa, the emus of\nAustralia, and the rheas of South America, get there,--birds that never\nfly? There are three species of the rhea, or South-American ostrich; and\nforty-two of these would have a journey of eight thousand miles before\nthem, by the shortest route: but how could they cross the Atlantic? If\nthey went by land, they must have traversed the length of the American\ncontinent, from Patagonia to Alaska, crossed at Behring's Strait when it\nwas frozen, and then travelled diagonally across nearly the whole\ncontinent of Asia to Armenia, after a journey that must have required\nmany months for its completion. The sloths, that have been confined to\nSouth America ever since the pliocene period at least, must have taken\nthe same route. How they crossed the mountain streams, and lived when\npassing over broad prairies, it would be difficult to say. A mile a day\nwould be a rapid rate for these slow travellers, and it would therefore\nrequire about forty years for them to arrive at their destination. But,\nsince the life of a sloth is not as long as this, they must have\nbequeathed their journey to their posterity, and they to their\ndescendants, born on the way, who must have reached the ark before the\ndoor was closed. The land-snails must have met with still greater\ndifficulties. Impelled by most wonderful instinct, they commenced their\njourney full a thousand years before the time; and their posterity of\nthe five hundredth generation must have made their appearance, and been\nprovided with a passage by the venerable Noah.\n\nScott, who wrote a commentary on the Bible seventy or eighty years ago,\nmust have seen some of these difficulties, though with nothing like the\nclearness with which science enables us to see them now. He says, \"There\nmust have been a very extraordinary miracle wrought, perhaps by the\nministration of angels, in bringing two of every species to Noah, and\nrendering them submissive to him and peaceable with each other; yet it\nseems not to have made any impression on the hardened spectators.\"\n\nThink of a troop of angels fly-catching, snail-seeking, and bug-hunting\nthrough all lands, lugging through the air, horses, giraffes, elephants,\nand rhinoceroses, and dropping them at the door of the ark. One has\ncrossed the Atlantic with rattlesnakes, copperheads, and boas twined\naround him, almost crippling his wings with their snaky folds; and\nanother with a brace of skunks, one under each wing, that the renewed\nworld may not lack the fragrance of the old. What a subject for the\npencil of a Raphael or Dore! Had the \"hardened spectators\" beheld such a\nscene as this, Noah and his cargo would have been cast out of the ark,\nand the sinners themselves, converted by this stupendous miracle, would\nhave taken passage therein.\n\nNot only must there have been a succession of most stupendous miracles\nto get the animals to the ark, but also to return them to their proper\nplaces of abode. But few of them could have lived in the neighborhood of\nArarat, had they been left there. How could the polar bear return to his\nhome among the ice-bergs, the sloths to the congenial forests of the New\nWorld, and all the mammals, reptiles, insects, and snails to their\nrespective habitats, the homes of their ancestors for ages innumerable?\nTo return them was just as necessary as to obtain them, and, though less\ndifficult, was equally impossible.\n\n_How could eight persons, all that were saved in the ark, attend to all\nthese animals!_ Nearly all would require food and water once a day, and\nmany twice. In a menagerie, one man takes care of four cages,--feeds,\ncleans, and waters the animals. In the ark, each person, women included,\nmust have attended each day to ten thousand nine hundred and sixty-four\nbirds, seven hundred and sixty-six beasts, one hundred and fourteen\nreptiles, one thousand one hundred and fifty land-snails, and one\nhundred and eighty-seven thousand five hundred insects.\n\nFew persons have an idea of the difficulty of keeping even the common\nbirds of a temperate climate alive in confinement for any length of\ntime. Food that is quite suitable in a wild state may be fatal to them\nwhen they are kept in the house. Linnets feed on winter rape-seed in the\nwild state, but soon die if fed upon it in-doors. \"They are to be fed,\"\nsays Bechstein, \"on summer rape-seed, moistened in water; and their food\nmust be varied by the addition of millet, radish, cabbage, lettuce and\nplantain-seeds, and sometimes a few bruised melon-seeds or barberries.\"\nNightingales, he says, should be fed on meal, worms, and fresh ants'\neggs: but, if it is not possible to get these, a mixture of hard egg,\nox-heart minced, and white bread may be given; but this often kills the\nbirds. No such food would do for Noah's nightingales, then, or where\nwould have been the nightingale's song? They must have been fed on meal,\nworms, and _fresh_ ant's eggs. How they were obtained, we have, of\ncourse, no knowledge. Bechstein says that larks may be fed with \"a paste\nmade of grated carrot, white bread soaked in water, and barley or wheat\nmeal, all worked together in a mortar. In addition to this paste, larks\nshould be supplied with poppy-seed, bruised hemp, crumb of bread, and\nplenty of greens, such as lettuce, endive, cabbage, with a little lean\nmeat or ant-eggs occasionally.\" He says the cage should be furnished\nwith a piece of fresh turf, often renewed, and great attention should be\npaid to cleanliness. The care of the birds in the ark probably fell to\nthe women. As they had not read Bechstein, or any other author on\nbird-keeping,--and thousands of the birds must have been total strangers\nto them,--how did they know what diet to supply them with, and where\ncould they get it, supposing they had time to supply them at all?\n\nIf the difficulty was great to keep the birds of a temperate climate,\nhow much greater must it have been to keep tropical birds in a climate\naltogether unsuited to them? The two birds of paradise bought by Wallace\nwere fed, he says, on rice, bananas, and cockroaches: of the last, he\nobtained several cans from a bake-house at Malta, and thus got his\nparadise birds, by good fortune, to England. But how many cans of\ncockroaches would be necessary for two hundred and fifty-two of such\nbirds,--the number in the ark? and where were the bake-houses from which\nthe supply might be obtained?\n\nTo keep this vast menagerie clean would have required a large corps of\nefficient workers, especially when we remember that there was but one\ndoor in each story, as some suppose; or one door to the whole ark, as\nthe story seems to teach, and this door was closed; and but one window,\nand that apparently in the roof. The Augean stable, the cleansing of\nwhich was one of the labors of Hercules, can but faintly indicate what\nmust have been the condition of the ark in less than a month, supposing\nthe animals to subsist as long.\n\n_Whence came the water that covered the earth to the tops of the highest\nmountains?_ \"All the high hills that were under the whole heaven were\ncovered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains\nwere covered,\" says the record. And to do this, it rained for forty days\nand forty nights. A fall of an inch of water in a day is considered a\nvery heavy rain in Great Britain. The heaviest single rain recorded fell\non the Khasia Hills in India, and amounted to thirty inches in\ntwenty-four hours. If this deluging rain could have continued for forty\ndays and nights, and had it fallen over the entire surface of the globe,\nthe amount would only have been one hundred feet; which, instead of\ncovering the mountains, would not have covered the hills. But, of\ncourse, such a rain is only possible for a very limited time, and on a\nsmall portion of the earth's surface.\n\nSir John Leslie, in \"The Encyclopedia Britannica,\" says, \"Supposing the\nvast canopy of air, by some sudden change of internal constitution, at\nonce to discharge its whole watery store, this precipitate would form a\nsheet of scarcely five inches thick over the surface of the globe.\" But\nif the water that covered the earth above the tops of the highest\nmountains came by rain, it must have rained seven hundred feet a day for\nforty days! or there must have fallen each day, according to Sir John\nLeslie's estimate, more than fourteen hundred times as much water on the\nearth as the atmosphere contained!\n\nBut the writer says, \"The fountains of the great deep were broken up.\"\nTo the Jews, who supposed, with David, that God had founded the earth\nupon the seas, and established it upon the floods, this meant something;\nbut, in the light of geology, we see that it only demonstrates the\nignorance of the man who wrote and the people that believed the story.\n\nAdam Clarke, commenting on this passage, says, \"It appears that an\nimmense quantity of water occupied the centre of the antediluvian earth;\nand, as this burst forth by the order of God, the circumambient strata\nmust sink in order to fill up the vacuum occasioned by the elevated\nwaters.\" If true, it would not have assisted in drowning the world one\nspoonful. For if the strata sank anywhere to fill the hollow previously\noccupied by the water, it would only make the mountains so much higher\nin comparison: hence it would require just that much extra water to\ncover them. In the light of geology, however, the notion is sufficiently\nabsurd. A mile and a half deep, the earth's interior is hot enough to\nconvert water into steam; there is, therefore, no chance for water to\nexist in its centre, or anywhere near it.\n\n_It is as great a difficulty to discover where the water went when the\nflood was over._ We are told that the fountains of the deep and the\nwindows of heaven were stopped, and the rain was restrained. But this\ncould do nothing towards diminishing the water. All that it could\npossibly accomplish would be to prevent the rise of the water. But we\nare also told that \"God made a wind to pass over the earth.\" All that\nthe wind could do, however, would be to convey to the atmosphere the\nmoisture it took up in vapor; and this could not have lowered the water\na yard. The highest mountain, Kunchinginga, is more than twenty-eight\nthousand feet high; the flood prevailed one hundred and fifty days, and\nabated two hundred and twenty-five; and if this abatement was done by\nthe wind, it must have blown an ocean of water from the entire surface\nof the earth, one hundred and twenty-five deep, every day for eight\nmonths! All the hurricanes that ever blew, blowing at once, would be the\ngentlest zephyr of a summer's eve, compared with such a wind as that;\nand by what possibility could such a craft as the ark survive the storm?\n\nA question, proper to be asked is, _How were the animals supplied with\nlight?_ and how did the attendants see to wait upon them in the first\nand second stories of the ark? There was but one window, and that only\ntwenty-two inches in size, and it appears to have been in the third\nstory. It was a day when kerosene was unknown, and tallow dips were\nuninvented. How did these animals live in the darkness? and, above all,\nhow did Noah and his family supply their wants? It could have been no\neasy or pleasant thing to wait upon hungry lions, tigers, crocodiles,\nand rattlesnakes in the dark, to say nothing of the danger.\n\n_How did they breathe?_ There was but one twenty-two inch window; the\nark was \"pitched within and without with pitch;\" \"The Lord shut him in.\"\nTalk of the Black Hole of Calcutta: it must have been pure as the breath\nof morning compared with the condition of the ark in one day.\n\n_Where did they obtain water for drink?_ Supposing all the additional\nwater needed to drown the world was fresh, when mingled with the water\nof the sea, as much as one-tenth of it would be salt water, and this\nwould render it utterly unfit for drink. Provision must therefore have\nbeen made for water; and a space certainly half as large as the ark must\nhave been taken up for the water necessary for this immense multitude.\n\n_The fish, mollusks, crustaceans (such as our crabs and lobsters), and\nall corals, must have died if such a flood had taken place_,--the\nfresh-water fish from the salt water at once added to their proper\nelement, and the salt-water fish and other marine forms from so large an\naddition of fresh water. For months, there could have been no shore:\nwhat is now the margin of the sea was buried miles deep; and all the\nfucoidal vegetation, upon which myriads of animals subsist, must have\nperished, and the animals with it, if the change in the constitution of\nthe water had not killed them. Every time a man swallows an oyster, he\nhas evidence that the Noachian deluge did not take place.\n\n_The plants must have perished also._ How many of our trees, to say\nnothing of the grasses and feeble plants, could endure a soaking of\nnearly twelve months' duration? Some of the very hardiest seeds might\nsurvive, but the number could not be large. The present condition of\nvegetation upon the globe is another evidence, then, that this deluge\ndid not take place.\n\n_When the ark landed on Mount Ararat, and the animals went forth, how\ndid they subsist?_ As they went down the mountains, the carnivorous\nanimals would have devoured a large portion of the herbivorous animals\nsaved in the ark. Beside the lions, tigers, leopards, ounces, and other\ncarnivorous mammals, amounting to eight hundred and ninety-two, there\nwere in the ark six hundred and sixty-six eagles, for there are\nforty-eight species; one hundred and forty-four buzzards, fourteen\nhundred and forty-two falcons, one hundred and forty hawks, two hundred\nand thirty-eight vultures, and eight hundred and ninety six owls. What\nchance would a few sheep, rabbits and squirrels, rats and mice, doves\nand chickens, have, among this ravenous multitude? How could the ants\nescape, with ant-eaters, aard-varks and pangolins on the watch for them\nas soon as they made their appearance? There were as many dogs as hares,\nas many cats as mice. How long a lease of life could the sheep, hares,\nand mice, calculate upon? Before the herbivorous animals had multiplied,\nso as to furnish the carnivorous animals with food, they must all have\nbeen destroyed, after all the pains taken for their preservation. Noah\nshould have given the herbivora, at least a year's start, especially\nsince the vegetation of the globe was so deficient.\n\nBut we are told that the species of animals may have been much fewer in\nthe days of Noah; and, therefore, much less room would be necessary. A\nsingle pair of cats, say some, may have produced all the animals of the\ncat kind; a pair of dogs, all the animals that belong to the dog family.\nSuch an explanation might have been given when zoology was little known,\nand geology had no existence; but there is no place for it now. Animals\nchange, it is true, and all species have probably been produced from a\nfew originals; but the process by which this is accomplished is so slow\nin its operation, that we have no knowledge of the formation of a new\nspecies. We know that lions, tigers, and cats of various species,\nexisted long before the time of the deluge, and dogs, wolves and foxes;\nand we find mummied cats, dogs, and other animals in Egypt, as old or\nolder than the deluge, so little changed from those of the present time\nin the same locality, that we cannot recognize any difference between\nthem.\n\n_\"You seem to forget that all things are possible with God: he could\nhave packed these animals into an ark of one-half the size, brought them\naltogether in the twinkling of an eye, and returned them as rapidly.\"_\n\nAnd you seem to forget that the account in Genesis gives us no hint of\nany such miracle. Noah was to take the animals to him, and to take unto\nhim of all food that is eaten; and, as Hugh Miller remarks, \"the\nexpedient of having recourse to supposititious miracle in order to get\nover a difficulty insurmountable on every natural principle, is not of\nthe nature of an argument, but simply an evidence of the want of it.\nArgument is at an end when supposititious miracle is introduced.\" But,\nif a miracle was worked, it was not one, but ten thousand of the most\nstupendous miracles, and entirely unnecessary ones. This, the Rev. Dr.\nPye Smith saw, when he said, \"We cannot represent to ourselves the idea\nof all land animals being brought into one small spot, from the polar\nregions, the torrid zone, and all the other climates of Asia, Africa,\nEurope, and America, Australia, and the thousands of islands,--their\npreservation and provision, and the final disposal of them,--without\nbringing up the idea of miracles more stupendous than any that are\nrecorded in Scripture. The great decisive miracle of Christianity,--the\nresurrection of the Lord Jesus,--sinks down before it.\"\n\nIt is a favorite method with the advocates of special revelations to\nshow their agreement with the operations of natural law, till a\ndifficulty is met with that cannot be answered, when they flee at once\nto miracle to save them. But, in this case, miracle itself cannot save\nthem.\n\nGeology furnishes us with evidence that no such deluge has taken place.\nAccording to Hugh Miller, \"In various parts of the world, such as\nAuvergne in Central France, and along the flanks of Etna, there are\ncones of long-extinct or long-slumbering volcanoes, which, though of at\nleast triple the antiquity of the Noachian deluge, and though composed\nof the ordinary incoherent materials, exhibit no marks of denudation.\nAccording to the calculations of Sir Charles Lyell, no devastating flood\ncould have passed over the forest-zone of Etna during the last twelve\nthousand years.\"\n\nArchaeology enters her protest equally against it. We have abundance of\nEgyptian mummies, statues, inscriptions, paintings, and other\nrepresentations of Egyptian life belonging to a much earlier period than\nthe deluge. With only such modifications as time slowly introduced, we\nfind the people, their language, and their habits, continuing after that\ntime, as they had done for centuries before. Lepsius, writing from the\npyramids of Memphis, in 1843, says, \"We are still busy with structures,\nsculptures, and inscriptions, which are to be classed, by means of the\nnow more accurately determined groups of kings, in an epoch of highly\nflourishing civilization, as far back as the fourth millennium before\nChrist.\" That is one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years before the\ntime of the flood. Lyell says that \"Chevalier Bunsen, in his elaborate\nand philosophical work on ancient Egypt, has satisfied not a few of the\nlearned, by an appeal to monumental inscriptions still extant, that the\nsuccessive dynasties of kings may be traced back without a break, to\nMenes, and that the date of his reign would correspond with the year\n3,640 B.C.;\" that is nearly thirteen hundred years before the time of\nthe deluge. Strange that the whole world should have been drowned and\nthe Egyptians never knew it!\n\nFrom the \"Types of Mankind,\" we learn that the fact is \"asserted by\nLepsius, and familiar to all Egyptologists, that negro and other races\nalready existed in Northern Africa, on the Upper Nile, 2,300 years B.C.\"\n\nBut this is only forty-eight years after the deluge. What kind of a\nfamily had Noah? Was amalgamation practised by any of Noah's sons? If\nall the human occupants of the ark were Caucasians, how did they produce\nnegro races in forty-eight years? The facts again compel us to announce\nthe fabulous character of this Genesical story of the deluge.\n\n_\"No intelligent person now believes that it was a total deluge:\nBuckland, Pye Smith, Miller, Hitchcock, and all Christian geologists,\nagree that it was a partial deluge, and the account can be so\nexplained.\"_\n\nHow strange that God should dictate an account of the deluge that led\neverybody to a false conclusion with regard to it, till science taught\nthem a better. But let us read what the account says, and see whether it\ncan be explained to signify a partial deluge. To save the Bible from its\ninevitable fate, such men as Buckland, Smith, Miller, Hitchcock, and\nother Bible apologists, it is evident from their writings, were ready to\nresort to any scheme, however wild.\n\nI read (Gen. vi. 7), \"I will destroy both man and beast, and the\ncreeping thing.\" How could a partial deluge accomplish this? (v. 13);\n\"The end of all flesh is come before me. I will destroy them with the\nearth.\" How could all flesh be destroyed with the earth by any other\nthan a total deluge? (v. 17); \"I do bring a flood of waters upon the\nearth, to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under\nheaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.\" Not only is man\nto be destroyed, but all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under\nheaven, and every thing in the earth is to die. Can this be tortured to\nmean a partial deluge? (vii. 19); \"And the waters prevailed exceedingly\nupon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven\nwere covered; and all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of\nfowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of creeping thing that creepeth\nupon the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of\nlife, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance\nwas destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man and\ncattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they\nwere destroyed from the earth, and Noah only remained alive, and they\nthat were with him in the ark.\" Had the man who wrote this story been a\nlawyer, and had he known how these would-be-Bible-believers, and at the\nsame time geologists, would seek to pervert his meaning, he could not\nhave more carefully worded his account. It is not possible for any man\nto express the idea of a total flood more definitely than this man has\ndone. He does not merely say the hills were covered, but \"_all_\" the\nhills were covered; and lest you should think that he certainly did not\nmean the most elevated, he is careful to say \"all the _high_\" hills were\ncovered; and lest some one should say he only meant the hills in that\npart of the country, he says expressly \"all the high hills that were\n_under the whole heaven were covered_.\" He is even so cautious as to\nintroduce the phrase \"_whole_ heaven,\" lest some one in its absence\nmight still think that the deluge was a partial one. To make its\nuniversality still more evident, he says, \"All flesh died that moved\nupon the earth.\" This would have been sufficiently definite for most\npersons, but not so for him; he particularizes so that none may\nescape,--\"both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of creeping\nthing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.\" To leave no\npossibility of mistake, he adds, \"all in whose nostrils was the breath\nof life, of all that was in the dry land, died.\" Can any thing more be\nneeded? The writer seems to see that some theological professor may even\nyet try to make this mean a partial deluge; and he therefore says,\n\"Every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the\nground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of\nthe heaven; they were destroyed from the earth.\" Is it possible to add\nto the strength of this? He thinks it is; and he therefore says, \"Noah\nonly remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.\" Could any\ntruthful man write this and then mean that less than a hundredth part of\nthe earth's surface was covered. If not a total flood, why save the\nanimals, above all the birds? All that Noah and his family need to have\ndone would have been to move out of the region till the storm was over.\nIf a partial flood, how could the ark have rested on the mountains of\nArarat? Ararat itself is seventeen thousand feet high, and it rises from\na plateau that is seven thousand feet above the sea-level. A flood that\nenabled the ark to float on to that mountain could not have been far\nfrom universal; and, when such a flood is accounted for on scientific\nprinciples, it will be just as easy to account for a total flood.\n\n_\"The flood was only intended to destroy man, and therefore only covered\nthose parts of the earth that were occupied by him.\"_\n\nThe Bible states, however, that it was intended to destroy every thing\nwherein was the breath of life; and your account and the Bible account\ndo not at all agree. But, if man was intended to be destroyed, the flood\nmust have been wide-spread. We know that Africa was occupied before that\ntime, and had been for thousands of years, by various races. We learn,\nfrom the recent discoveries in the Swiss Lakes, that man was in\nSwitzerland before that time; in France, as Boucher's and Rigollet's\ndiscoveries prove; in Great Britain, as the caves in Devonshire show; in\nNorth America, as the fossil human skull beneath Table Mountain\ndemonstrates. Hence, for the flood to destroy man alone at so recent a\nperiod, it must have been as wide spread as the earth.\n\nEven according to the Bible account, the garden of Eden, where man was\nfirst placed, was somewhere near the Euphrates; and in sixteen hundred\nyears the race must have rambled over a large part of the earth's\nsurface. The highest mountains in the world, the Himalayas, are within\ntwo thousand miles of the Euphrates. That splendid country, India, would\nhave been occupied long before the time of the deluge; and, on the\nflanks of the Himalayas, man could have laughed at any flood that\nnatural causes could possibly produce.\n\n_\"How do you account, then, for these traditions of a deluge that we\nfind all over the globe?\"_\n\nNothing more easy. In all times floods have occurred; some by heavy and\nlong-continued rains, others by the bursting of lake-barriers or the\nirruption of the sea; and wherever traditions of these have been met\nwith, men with the Bible story in their minds have at once attributed\ntheir origin to the Noachian deluge.\n\n_\"But Jesus and the apostles indorse the account of the deluge.\"_\n\nGranted; but does that transform a fable into a fact? They believed the\nstory just as our modern theologians believe it; because they were\ntaught it when they were children, and had not learned better. Jesus\nsays (Matt. xxv. 37-39), \"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the\ncoming of the Son of man be. For, as in the days that were before the\nflood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,\nuntil the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the\nflood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son\nof man be.\" If the man had regarded the story as false, he never would\nhave referred to it in such a manner. And, in this manifestation of\ncredulity on the part of Jesus, we can see the very false estimate\nplaced upon him by so large a portion of the people of this country. Let\nthe truth be spoken, though Jesus and all other idols be overthrown. So\nhe would say, if alive, or he was not as good and intelligent a man as I\nthink he was.\n\nBy this story the Bible stands or falls as a divine book. It falls, as\nwe see, and takes its place with all other human fallible productions.\nFor knowledge, we go to Nature, our universal mother, who gives her\nBible to every soul, and preaches her everlasting gospel to all people.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\n    Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Variant\n    spellings have been retained. Hyphenation has been standardised.","title":"The Deluge in the Light of Modern Science: A Discourse","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":9355}