One of the primary influences on Charles Darwin, causing him to seek to find a way to replace the idea of creation by God, was Charles Lyell. Lyell was well-named, as he was certainly a liar. The lies and exaggerations and imaginary evidence presented to Darwin turned him towards a course that has brought great tragedy to the world and a sad ending for Darwin himself. Lyell deserves MUCH of the blame for Darwinism. An absolute first-ballot Hall of Shamer!
19 August 2009
But was Charles Lyell truly viewing the rocks from a scientifically objective perspective?
In his private correspondence, Lyell admitted to the strongly anti-biblical (“anti-Mosaical”) nature of his ideas. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison:
I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible.1Edward Bailey’s biography of Charles Lyell writes that at that time, “A few days in Paris allowed Lyell to enjoy a lecture by Prévost ‘on diluvium and caves, a good logical refutation of the diluvian humbug’.”2
By the following year, we see that Charles Lyell has a clear agenda, i.e. to “free the science from Moses”.3 That is what Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:
I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.
If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.
P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”4Lyell, the lawyer par excellence, was involved, not in scientific investigation but political game playing to ensure his uniformitarian ideas would be accepted by the church, even though he knew they clearly contradicted the plain teaching of Scripture.5 Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century, as geologists now recognize:
“Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that … all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual.” 6
- From Mortenson, T., The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 225–226, citing Brooke, J., “The Natural Theology of the Geologists: Some Theological Strata”, in Jordanova, L. and Porter, R., Images of the Earth (British Society for the History of Science, Monograph 1, 1979), p. 45. Return to text.
- Bailey, E., British men of science: Charles Lyell, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, London, Great Britain, 1962 p. 75. Return to text.
- Ref. 2, pp. 77–78. Bailey adds re Lyell: “In this matter, he thinks, ‘Prévost has done a little but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France’.” Diluvium was the term used for the surface sediments attributed at the time to Noah’s Flood but later recognized as being formed by glaciers during the Ice Age. Return to text.
- From Mortenson, T., The Great Turning Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology—Before Darwin, Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 2004, pp. 226–227, citing Lyell, Katherine (Lyell’s sister-in-law), Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. (London: Murray, 1881), I:p. 268–271. Return to text.
- Lyell further promulgated his uniformitarian views in a lecture at King’s College, London, on 4 May 1832, when he said “the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence”. Lecture II at King’s College London on 4 May 1832—quoted in Rudwick, Martin J.S., Charles Lyell Speaks in the Lecture Theatre, The British Journal for the History of Science 9(2):147–155, 1976, DOI:10.1017/S0007087400014734. Such a view might be reasonable if the Bible did not describe any events relating to the formation of rocks on earth. But the Bible does speak of such events, i.e. Creation Week and the Flood. Thus Lyell’s approach is like trying to write a history of British settlement in Australia in the 1700s by merely studying surviving buildings and other remnant artifacts around Sydney but intentionally ignoring written eyewitness testimony from that time. Or like writing about the life of Jesus on earth without reference to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Return to text.
- Allmon, W.D. Post Gradualism, Science 262:122–123, October 1, 1993. Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, was reviewing Ager, D., The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1993. Return to text.
One of the world’s greatest natural attractions has some profound lessons about the age of things.
We live near Niagara Falls — one of the must see sights in the world. Whenever we pick up guests from Toronto airport, one of them usually asks, ‘Don’t you live near Niagara Falls?’ My wife and I know all too well what the next question will be! We have seen the Falls so many times with guests, that we feel we know them intimately.
Aside from the beauty and grandeur of the Falls, very few of the millions of visitors realise that they are looking at one of the major excuses for abandoning biblical chronology.1
In the mid-1800s the views of a lawyer-turned-geologist, Charles Lyell, influenced the scientific community to accept the idea that the earth had been shaped by ‘slow and gradual’ processes over countless millions of years. Let’s see how Lyell used the Niagara Gorge to undermine the chronology of the Bible.
What Lyell sawIn 1841, the Falls were much harder to reach than they are today. Late that year, Lyell visited the area and did his research to determine the approximate age of the gorge that was excavated by the Niagara River.2 No one disputes what Lyell saw; you can go there today and see essentially the same thing.
Lyell was told that large chunks of limestone would regularly break off and fall into the gorge. He could see how cracks in the limestone would fill with water. As the water froze in winter it expanded, weakening the limestone, and causing spectacular sights when large chunks broke loose, crashing into the gorge. Lyell wrote, ‘[T]he sudden descent of huge fragments in 1818 and 1828 is said to have shaken the adjacent country like an earthquake.’ 4 Once they broke off, they exposed the shale to renewed rapid erosion.
Lyell also discovered that in 1829, a long-time resident told a Mr Blackwell, the son of an eminent geologist, that the Falls had receded about 45 metres (150 feet) during the 40 years he had lived there — more than one metre (three feet) a year.2,5
Reading the headlines — not the reportWhen Lyell returned to England, he reported that he had scientifically determined that the Niagara Gorge was 35,000 years old, much older than the Bible allowed. Few people actually read the report that he published in a revised edition of his book, Principles of Geology. Even fewer had any knowledge of Niagara Falls in those days — fewer still had seen it. Since Lyell was a respected English gentleman, most people blindly accepted his estimate. They readily understood how water erodes rock, and this made Lyell’s report all the more believable.
Overall, rather than adopting a ‘wait and see’ attitude, the Church capitulated to these long ages, even though they contradicted the Bible. This was tragic, because Lyell’s conclusions were based on a number of logical fallacies. However, the damage was done, and increasingly people began to doubt the Bible, assuming its chronology was not reliable in the light of what Lyell had claimed.
Indeed it was an early edition of Lyell’s book that greatly influenced Darwin, when he read it on his famous voyage on HMS Beagle. By 1859 when Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species was published, Lyell’s arguments promoting a vast age of the earth, and undermining confidence in biblical chronology, had greatly helped prepare the way for evolution’s acceptance.
Fudging the resultsWhat Lyell wrote in Principles of Geology about what he saw on his trip to Niagara Falls was sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of most readers. But what he omitted would have undermined his age estimate to any alert reader. The old adage of ‘never let the facts spoil a good theory’ seems to apply here.
Lyell ignored the reports from Mr Blackwell that residents had observed the Falls recede by more than one metre (three feet) a year. At that rate the gorge would be less than 12,000 years old, which was in the ballpark of the biblical chronology, given the uncertainties in the estimates. That was not old enough for Lyell, who was looking to promote his slow-and-gradual geological theories. So he chose to disregard the data and conducted his own investigation of the residents.
Lyell’s conclusion was wrong. Later analysis of eyewitness reports from 1842 to 1927 confirmed the high rate of erosion — 1.2 to 1.5 metres (four to five feet) a year.6 The residents of Lyell’s day had been conservative! This rate places an upper limit of 7,000 to 9,000 years for the gorge.
However, we now know the gorge eroded even faster than this, so this age is still too high (see Erosion at Niagra Falls supports the biblical time-scale below).
Assumptions in dating methodUnlike historical dating, which depends on direct observation, all ‘scientific’ dating methods rely on assumptions about what happened in the past. Without such assumptions, no age can be calculated. No matter how reasonable these assumptions may seem, we can never be certain they are true unless we have eyewitnesses for the entire time period in question.
We know that the assumptions Lyell made were wrong, because he ended up with a greatly inflated age that did not agree with the Bible. Indeed, his exaggerated 35,000-year age has long been abandoned, even in the geological literature, which now quotes 12,000 years for the age of the gorge — still much older than the Bible allows. But even this age is not based on the best estimates for the erosion rate of the Niagara River. These would still give an age that was ‘too young’. Rather, the 12,000 years is based on radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood from St David’s Gorge. Readers of Creation will already know how inaccurate radiometric dating is!7 Radiocarbon dates are too old because the past effects of Noah’s Flood on the earth’s carbon balance are ignored.8 When these effects are properly included, the radiocarbon age agrees with the Bible.
Interestingly, rather than supporting Lyell’s concept of an old earth, Niagara Gorge provides wonderful consistency with the biblical time-scale. When all the factors that affect erosion are considered, the calculated age agrees quite nicely with the gorge forming since the ice cover retreated about 3,800 years ago, after the post-Flood Ice Age.9 (see Erosion at Niagra Falls supports the biblical time-scale below).
Lessons for todayIt seems the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history! Here are some of the lessons we should have learned:
The hype in the newspaper headlines is rarely justified when the full report is
read, or is reviewed by others.
If the conclusions contradict the Bible, we should examine the assumptions and reasoning and find where they are wrong. If you read with a critical eye, you should start to see inconsistencies in the material.
The Bible is true no matter what men say. The burden of proof rests on the scoffers.
If you look down through history, the scoffers have a 100% average — of being
wrong! Given enough time, any report that appears to undermine the Bible
will itself be undermined by later reports!
Beware of the so-called ‘proofs’ the scoffers try to use (cf.
2 Peter 3:3–7). More than one hundred years ago, Robert Lewis Dabney
pointed out that it is not good enough for the scoffer to propose a hypothesis that
may be true, and claim thereby that the Bible is disproved. Rather, they
must show that their hypothesis must be true; that there is no other possible
explanation.10 On the other hand,
we don’t have to prove that their hypothesis is wrong. We just need to show
that other possibilities exist.
Erosion at Niagara Falls supports the biblical time-scale
Many factors affect how fast the Falls eroded the gorge, and much evidence suggests that the erosion rate was considerably faster in the distant past.
- The geological strata are not the same thickness over the whole length of Niagara Gorge. The casual visitor would not notice this variation because the shale layer is mostly covered with vegetation or crumbled limestone. But, to the alert observer, the change in thickness is obvious. At Goat Island, near the Falls, the limestone layer is about 27 metres (90 feet) thick. The underlying layer of shale is about 21 metres (70 feet) thick. Three kilometres (two miles) down from the Falls, at the suspension bridge, the hard limestone layer is only about 14 metres (45 feet) — half as thick as at the Falls. It stays this thickness for the remaining eight kilometres (five miles) to Queenston. The falling water erodes the soft shale quickly, leaving a hard limestone overhang that tends to protect the shale and slow erosion. However, once the limestone overhang breaks off, the soft shale again erodes quickly. The thinner limestone layer would have broken off much easier; hence, the first eight kilometres of the gorge would have eroded much faster than the last three kilometres.
- There was a greater flow of water in the river in the past. However, although Lyell recognised this, he illogically adopted an erosion rate that was much less than that observed by the residents. With more water the rock would have eroded faster — not slower.
- The gorge is much narrower than the existing Falls, only one-quarter to one-half the width. A narrower Falls means a greater flow of water over the spillway and faster erosion. Again, although Lyell recognised this,11 he did not factor it into his calculations.
- After the biblical Flood, we would expect the rivers to have contained much more sediment than they do today. This would have also increased the erosion rate.
- The hard limestone layer sometimes breaks off in huge blocks instead of eroding slowly. Although Lyell knew this, he did not factor it into his calculations, for this would have lowered his age estimate.
- The shape of the crest of the Falls greatly affects the rate of erosion. It is now known that, rather than the smooth horseshoe shape seen today, a notched crest has existed in the past.12 With a notched crest, the hard rock layer breaks off much sooner than for a smooth, horseshoe crest. In fact, when the spillway was notched from 1875 to 1886, it eroded 60 metres (200 feet) — or 5.5 metres (18 feet) a year!13 Significantly, where the gorge eroded quickly, it is not as deep. It is only where erosion was slow that there was time to erode out a deep pool. A good part of the gorge is shallower than the Maid of the Mist pool, next to the Falls, indicating that erosion was faster.
- Ice erodes rock much faster than water. Meltwater under pressure beneath the ice is believed to have carved out the finger lakes in New York State during the Ice Age, and a similar process may have excavated part of the Niagara Gorge. In any case, water from the melting glaciers would have greatly swelled the flow of the Niagara River. Lyell assumed that the Falls excavated the whole gorge. Again, without eye-witness accounts, we cannot verify this assumption. It is likely that the gorge was partly excavated during Noah’s Flood by receding floodwaters, and then by glacial action during the Ice Age.
Altogether, the estimate for the whole gorge is 4,400 years—much less than the 35,000 years Lyell published, and the current ‘age’ of 12,000 years. And we have not yet calculated the age effects of increased sediment load, increased water flow, or the possibility of erosion by ice, etc. Thus, the revised age agrees remarkably with the end of the Ice Age (3,800 years ago), which followed Noah’s Flood (4,300 years ago).14
References and notes
- Lyell, C., Ref. 2. Return to text.
- Philbrick, S.S., Horizontal configuration and the rate of erosion of Niagara Falls, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 81:3723–3732, 1970. Return to text.
- Philbrick, S.S., What future for Niagara Falls? Geological Society of America Bulletin, 85:91–98, 1974. Return to text.
- See Oard, M.J., Ref. 9. Return to text.
References and notes
- Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men, 4th ed., TFE Publishing, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp. 81–84, 1999, describes how the Niagara Falls were used to help change the thinking of a whole generation. Return to text.
- Lyell, C., Principles of Geology, 11th edition, D. Appleton and Co., New York, NY, USA, 1:354–358, 1873. Return to text.
- In those days, Queenston was spelled Queenstown. Return to text.
- Ref. 2, p. 356. Return to text.
- Henry Rodgers, On the Falls of Niagara, American Journal of Science and Arts (New Haven), xxvii:326–335, January 1835. Return to text.
- Ref. 1, note 5, p. 447, reports the recession rates summarised by Tovell, W.M., The Niagara River, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1979. Return to text.
- See for example Snelling, A.A., Radioactive dating failure, Creation 22(1):18–21, 1999; Geological conflict: young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, Creation22(2):44–47, 2000; Q&A: Radiometric Dating. Return to text.
- Batten, D. (ed.), The Answers Book, Creation Ministries International, Brisbane, Qld, Australia, pp. 63–82, 1999. Return to text.
- See Oard, M.J., An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, USA, 1990. Return to text.
- Dabney, R.L., Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, 3:136–139, 1892. Republished by Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA, USA, 1982. The original article cited in the book was first published in the Southern Presbyterian Review, July, 1861. Return to text.