Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
Philosophers often entertained evolutionary views in private even though it may not have been culturally acceptable to articulate these views in public.
Timeline: Public vs. Private Positions on Deep Time & Biblical Authority (Select Figures)
A visual of how many writers trimmed, allegorized, or anonymized their true views in public while signaling broader departures in private notes, correspondence, or unpublished texts.
Century Figure Public/Published stance (samples) Private/Unpublished or Candid stance (samples) Why it mattered culturally 3rd Origen (c.185-253) Allegorical days of Genesis; Christian orthodoxy affirmed. Hints that “days” are figurative frames; creation language not a physics manual. Opens door to non‑literal “days” without explicit long chronology. 4th-5th Augustine (354-430) Creation in six days affirmed; Scripture authoritative. Speculates instantaneity of creation; “days” as logical order, not solar time. Makes chronology pliable under theological control. 13th Aquinas (1225-1274) Creation in time taught by faith; Aristotle valuable. Says reason cannot prove beginning or eternity; accepts creation by revelation. Grants philosophy an autonomous lane (seed of nature/grace split). 13th Latin Averroists Public conformity to creation. “Double truth” tendency—eternity of the world in philosophy. Academic strategy to avoid censure; philosophy slips free of Moses. 17th Galileo (1564-1642) Heliocentrism as hypothesis; Scripture about salvation. Letter to Christina: Bible not a physics text; avoids explicit deep time. Reframes exegesis to protect natural inquiry from theological policing. 17th Newton (1642-1727) ~4000 BC; Scripture as foundation of chronology; providence. General Scholium: “A God without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.” Draft E: “Omnipræsens est non per virtutem solam, sed etiam per substantiam: nam virtus sine substantia subsistere non potest.” Newton ties “powers/virtues” directly to God’s sustaining presence, rejecting autonomous “laws.” 17th Steno (1638-1686) Stratigraphy; cautious about dates; Catholic bishop. Principles imply long sequences; avoids explicit challenge to Mosaic dates. Method seeds geological deep time without saying so. 18th Buffon (1707-1788) ~75,000‑year Earth in print; issues a retraction to Sorbonne. Unpublished notes: millions of years for sedimentary strata. Prototype of trimming for patronage/orthodoxy; deep time kept quiet. 18th Deluc (1727-1817) Reconciliation geology; Biblical piety. Private letters uneasy with young chronology; long pre‑Adamic ages. Clerical bridge figures normalize long ages pastorally. 18th Werner (1749-1817) Neptunism; universal ocean; vague on time. Layering implies immense durations; avoids quantifying. Geological schoolroom shifts students toward deep time. 18th Saussure (1740-1799) Careful Alpine observations; non‑polemical. Notes acknowledge vast timescales for uplift/glaciation. Mountain science popularizes deep time visually. late‑18th Hutton (1726-1797) “No vestige of a beginning…” Same in private—bold; but couches method as observation, not anti‑Moses polemic. Public rhetoric stylizes infinity; cultural cue: Genesis sidelined. early‑19th Buckland (1784-1856) Gap/ruin‑reconstruction models; harmonizing tone. Correspondence concedes fossils strain Mosaic timing. Clerical geology softens resistance in churches. early‑19th Lyell (1797-1875) Uniformitarianism; present is key to past. Letter to Scrope (1830): aim to “free the science from Moses.” Strategy: detach public education/policy from Scripture. mid‑19th Chambers (1802-1871) Vestiges published anonymously. Privately convinced of progressive creation/evolution. Anonymity as cultural probe; tests appetite for a post‑Mosaic story.
After the fall of Rome, Christianity became ascendant, largely through Constantine. Many Christians compromised either with Aristotle and "classical" culture, or else they compromised with Constantine and the Empire: they entertained evolutionary ideas in private, while still publicly affirming the Bible. Of course, as time went on, atheists and other evolutionists were bold enough to speak out publicly against the Bible, while others lagged and still held dissenting opinions to themselves.
Here’s a “shadow list” of figures before Darwin whose private, unpublished, or hedged views about Earth’s antiquity or cosmology went farther than what they felt safe to publish openly. These cases highlight how much the nature-grace dichotomy (or fear of authority) shaped the development of “deep time.”
ߌ? Antiquity & Late Antiquity
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-253)
In On First Principles, Origen hints that the “days” of Genesis were not literal days. He avoided explicit speculation on long chronology but made room for symbolic, non-literal creation — a seedbed for allegorical cosmology that weakened the young-earth assumption.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
Publicly defended creation “in six days,” and spoke of the age of the earth as "six thousand" years, but privately (especially in Confessions and De Genesi ad Litteram) speculated that God may have created the world instantaneously, and the “days” are figurative. This let him bypass the strict 4004 BC-style readings later associated with Genesis.
ߌ? Medieval & Scholastic
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
He officially upheld creation “in time” (against Aristotle’s eternalism), but admitted that reason alone could not prove whether the world had a beginning. In principle, he left room for an eternal cosmos as a philosophical possibility.
Averroists (13th c.)
In Paris and Padua, Aristotelian philosophers often held a “double truth”: publicly affirming creation to avoid censure, but privately following Aristotle’s eternalism. Some scholastics explicitly distinguished “truth in theology” vs. “truth in philosophy.”
ߌ? Early Modern Natural Philosophy
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Advocated heliocentrism, but carefully presented it as “hypothesis” under threat of the Inquisition. By extension, a non-literal Genesis was implied, but he avoided saying so explicitly. His 1615 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina argues that Scripture teaches “how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
Nicolas Steno (1638-1686)
As father of stratigraphy, he proposed principles implying long sequences of rock formation. As a Catholic bishop, he avoided drawing chronological conclusions, but his method opened the door to far older ages than Ussher’s.
ߌ? Enlightenment & Early Geology
Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788)
As mentioned above: privately estimated millions of years, but in print reduced to 75,000 years under Sorbonne pressure.
Jean-André Deluc (1727-1817)
Publicly tried to reconcile geology with Genesis, but his correspondence reveals unease with a strict young-earth view and speculation of immense pre-human ages.
Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749-1817)
Publicly taught a Neptunist system starting from a universal ocean — sounding compatible with Genesis. But the layering of his system implied vast ages, which he left vague rather than quantified.
Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (1740-1799)
Wrote carefully, but in private notes on Alpine geology acknowledged timescales far longer than “Scriptural” history.
ߌ? Nineteenth-Century Figures Before Darwin
William Buckland (1784-1856)
Publicly defended a “gap theory” or “reconciliation geology,” but in private correspondence suggested that the fossil record contradicted traditional Mosaic chronology.
Charles Lyell (1797-1875) (pre-Origin)
His Principles of Geology avoided direct attacks on Scripture, framing uniformitarianism as method, not dogma. Letters show he deliberately softened language to avoid alienating religious readers.
Robert Chambers (1802-1871)
Published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation anonymously, to avoid backlash for his progressive evolutionary and deep-time cosmology. Privately, he was far more convinced than his “popular science” tone suggested.
✨ Why the “Shadow List” Matters
These men (and schools of thought) illustrate how cultural fear of theological censure or loss of patronage shaped what appeared in print. Many of them privately believed in, or at least entertained, ages far older than the traditional Genesis chronology, but trimmed or allegorized their views. Churchmen criticized public dissent, but didn't (or couldn't) take the lead and defend Genesis against growing arguments against it. They missed an important apologetic assignment.
Selected Quotations & References for “Public / Private” Gaps
Figure Public (or published) statement Private / less public / unpublished claim Reference / citation note Buffon (Georges-Louis Leclerc) In Histoire Naturelle, Buffon published an Earth-age in the tens of thousands (often ~ 75,000 years) to stay within acceptable bounds. (Encyclopedia.com) In his unpublished manuscripts, he reportedly extended the time scale to millions; e.g. sedimentary rocks alone “three million years.” (De Gruyter Brill) The De Gruyter introduction to Buffon notes that unpublished manuscripts stretch his scale ~40×, to ~3 million years. (De Gruyter Brill) Lyell (Charles Lyell) In Principles of Geology, he uses uniformitarianism, but stops short of openly attacking Moses. In a letter to George Poulett Scrope (14 June 1830), he said he would “free the science from Moses” and that a “beginning” is a “metaphysical question” beyond geography or geology. (Creation) Creationist sources quote that letter; see “The Hidden Agenda of Charles Lyell” summarizing Lyell’s private admission. (Creation) Galileo Galilei In Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615), Galileo argues Scripture is not intended to teach natural philosophy — it speaks in “popular terms” when addressing the masses. (Stanford University) He invokes Augustine’s caution in interpreting Scripture: “we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest … we conceive a prejudice … against something that truth hereafter may reveal.” (Stanford University) Many editions of Galileo’s collected works include this letter; see e.g. the Stanford PDF “Letter to the Grand Duchess.” (Stanford University) Newton (Isaac Newton) In the General Scholium of the Principia, Newton presents the universe as sustained by God’s dominion; he attributes the regularity of gravitational phenomena to God’s counsel. (See the version translated by Andrew Motte.) (Newton Project Canada) In unpublished manuscripts and theological writings, Newton argues that natural laws have no binding necessity apart from God’s will, and that God could have instituted different regularities. (This is reported in scholarly works on Newton’s theology, though direct manuscripts might require access to the Newton Project or similar archives.) The Andrew Motte English translation of the General Scholium is widely available (IsaacNewton.ca). (Newton Project Canada)