Thomas Jefferson on Young-Earth Creationism

We often encounter the ravings of creationists who — contrary to all historical evidence — insist that the US was founded on the bible (their sole “evidence” for that is Jefferson’s use of “Creator” in the Declaration). See Is America a “Christian Nation”? They sometimes go on to insist that the Founders were all creationists (duh! — the Revolution was generations before Darwin’s work was published) and were they alive today they’d still be creationists. That latter claim, of course, is absolute nonsense. The Founders weren’t idiots.

We’ve touched on this madness a few times before. The first was The Founders Rejected Evolution?, and some of the others were Discovery Institute: Another July 4th Hijacking, and Thomas Jefferson Joins The Discovery Institute!, and David Barton: Founding Fathers Rejected Darwin.

Today we thought we’d return to Jefferson and give you some quotes from his Notes on the State of Virginia. All of these excerpts come from his chapter on Productions mineral, vegetable and animal. We’ve added some bold font for emphasis and some paragraph breaks to make it more readable. Here we go:

Near the eastern foot of the North mountain are immense bodies of Schist, containing impressions of shells in a variety of forms. have received petrified shells of very different kinds from the first sources of the Kentucky, which bear no resemblance to any I have ever seen on the tide-waters. It is said that shells are found in the Andes, in South-America, fifteen thousand feet above the level of the ocean. This is considered by many, both of the learned and unlearned, as a proof of an universal deluge.

To the many considerations opposing this opinion, the following may be added. The atmosphere, and all its contents, whether of water, air, or other matters, gravitate to the earth; that is to say, they have weight. Experience tells us, that the weight of all these together never exceeds that of a column of mercury of 31 inches height, which is equal to one of rain-water of 35 feet high.

If the whole contents of the atmosphere then were water, instead of what they are, it would cover the globe but 35 feet deep; but as these waters, as they fell, would run into the seas, the superficial measure of which is to that of the dry parts of the globe as two to one, the seas would be raised only 52 1/2 feet above their present level, and of course would overflow the lands to that height only.

In Virginia this would be a very small proportion even of the champaign country, the banks of our tide-waters being frequently, if not generally, of a greater height. Deluges beyond this extent then, as for instance, to the North mountain or to Kentucky, seem out of the laws of nature.

[Skipping a discussion of possible historical floods.]

A second opinion has been entertained, which is, that, in times anterior to the records either of history or tradition, the bed of the ocean, the principal residence of the shelled tribe, has, by some great convulsion of nature, been heaved to the heights at which we now find shells and other remains of marine animals.

The favourers of this opinion do well to suppose the great events on which it rests to have taken place beyond all the aeras of history; for within these, certainly none such are to be found: and we may venture to say further, that no fact has taken place, either in our own days, or in the thousands of years recorded in history, which proves the existence of any natural agents, within or without the bowels of the earth, of force sufficient to heave, to the height of 15,000 feet, such masses as the Andes. The difference between the power necessary to produce such an effect, and that which shuffled together the different parts of Calabria in our days, is so immense, that, from the existence of the latter we are not authorised to infer that of the former.

[That was mostly written in 1781, before the science of geology was begun later in the 1780s by James Hutton and further developed by Charles Lyell, Darwin’s contemporary].

M. de Voltaire has suggested a third solution of this difficulty (Quest. encycl. Coquilles). He cites an instance in Touraine, where, in the space of 80 years, a particular spot of earth had been twice metamorphosed into soft stone, which had become hard when employed in building. In this stone shells of various kinds were produced, discoverable at first only with the microscope, but afterwards growing with the stone.

From this fact, I suppose, he would have us infer, that, besides the usual process for generating shells by the elaboration of earth and water in animal vessels, nature may have provided an equivalent operation, by passing the same materials through the pores of calcareous earths and stones: as we see calcareous dropstones generating every day by the percolation of water through lime-stone, and new marble forming in the quarries from which the old has been taken out; and it might be asked, whether it is more difficult for nature to shoot the calcareous juice into the form of a shell, than other juices into the forms of chrystals, plants, animals, according to the construction of the vessels through which they pass?

There is a wonder somewhere. Is it greatest on this branch of the dilemma; on that which supposes the existence of a power, of which we have no evidence in any other case; or on the first, which requires us to believe the creation of a body of water, and its subsequent annihilation? The establishment of the instance, cited by M. de Voltaire, of the growth of shells unattached to animal bodies, would have been that of his theory. But he has not established it. He has not even left it on ground so respectable as to have rendered it an object of enquiry to the literati of his own country.

Abandoning this fact, therefore, the three hypotheses are equally unsatisfactory; and we must be contented to acknowledge, that this great phaenomenon is as yet unsolved. Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, then he who believes what is wrong.

So there you are. Jefferson, when confronted with the peculiarity of fossil seashells on mountaintops, rejected all three hypotheses which were current in his day: (1) the Flood, because there was no evidence for it; (2) geological convulsions (the correct answer) because the science of geology was then unknown; and (3) Voltaire’s spontaneous generation, which seemed ridiculous. Then, to his great credit, he declared that “Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, then he who believes what is wrong.”

This is the man the creationists claim as one of their own. Will they continue to do so? Sure, for at least two reasons: (1) they don’t know any better; or (2) they do know, but it doesn’t bother them to lie.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

4 responses to “Thomas Jefferson on Young-Earth Creationism

  1. “(1) they don’t know any better; or (2) they do know, but it doesn’t bother them to lie.”
    ….any lie, no matter how egregious, is excusable if it brings more souls to baby Jesus!
    This also seems to apply to any act, no matter how monstrous, if it be done in “Jesus’ name”

  2. Curmudgeon: “This is the man the creationists claim as one of their own. Will they continue to do so? Sure, for at least two reasons: (1) they don’t know any better; or (2) they do know, but it doesn’t bother them to lie.”

    (3) Because far too many of their critics ass-u-me it’s (1) and don’t even consider (2) as a possibility, as you did. Thus a majority, including many who don’t even find their pseudoscience convincing, react with “what’s the harm, let them believe?”

    While (1) may be the case for most evolution-deniers on the street, the committed anti-evolution activists have a vested interest in telling falsehoods to “save the world.”

  3. Jim” “….any lie, no matter how egregious, is excusable if it brings more souls to baby Jesus!”

    So what’s Klinghoffer’s reason? Or Medved? Ben Stein? Harun Yahya?

  4. Frank J
    I was going to end my reply with “…insert your favourite deity…”, but I didn’t think that the readers here would need such an obvious statement – seems I was wrong!