2nd Point - Uniformitarianism
"Uniformitarianism is defined by the Glossary of Geology as "the fundamental principle or doctrine that geologic processes and natural laws now operating to modify the Earth's crust have acted in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today."(Robert Bates and Julia Jackson, Glossary of Geology, 2nd edition, American Geological Institute, 1980, pg. 677).
The idea of an old earth, is based on this principle of uniformity. It was started by James Hutton's book "Theory of the Earth". The idea was later expanded on by Charles Lyell in his three-volume series "Principles of Geology" published 1830-1833. Charles Darwin took Lyell's books on the Beagle where it got him thinking about slow biological change known as gradualism."
James Hutton was perhaps the father of Uniformitarianism, but Charles Lyell was the husband and primary salesman. Between the two of them, they spearheaded the movement swept through the scientific community. But did it do so on merit, or because of the world view that was becoming more popular among scientists of that time?
Hutton’s a priori commitment to materialism
"In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:
‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added)
This philosophy was expounded and popularized by the influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology (3 volumes, 1830–33), which greatly influenced Darwin. The historian and philosopher of science, William Whewell, coined the term uniformitarianism for this philosophy in an (anonymous) review of Lyell’s second volume (Quarterly Review XLVII(93):126, March 1832). Uniformitarianism is a not a refutation of Biblical teaching on Creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations for the rocks and fossils we observe.
Reference - Hutton, J., ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965."
Hutton and Lyell were successful in getting the scientific community to climb on board the Uniformitarian bandwagon. But evidence just kept raising its ugly head. Way back in 1976, Dr. Henry Morris (a hydrololgist) wrote this:
The Uniformitarian Century
One of the surprising developments of the past decade has been the resurgence of catastrophism in geological interpretation. Although the great men who were the real founders of geology (Steno, Woodward, et al) were not only catastrophists but believed in the Noahic Flood as the most important geologic event in earth history, the principle of uniformitarianism has dominated geological thinking for the past 150 years. The Scottish agriculturalist, James Hutton, and then the British lawyer, Charles Lyell, persuaded their contemporaries to reject the Biblical chronology and its cataclysmic deluge in favor of very slow processes acting through aeons of time. In his widely used textbook, Zumberge stated as recently as 1963:
"Opposed to this line of thinking was Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), a contemporary of Cuvier, who held that earth changes were gradual, taking place at the same uniform slowness that they are today. Lyell is thus credited with the propagation of the premise that more or less has guided geological thought ever since, namely, that the present is the key to the past. In essence, Lyell's doctrine of uniformitarianism stated that past geological processes operated in the same manner and at the same rate they do today."1
Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophism was there in the rocks and it could not be ignored indefinitely. Uniformitarianism was proving sterile ¾ present processes operating at present rates simply could not explain the great geological formations and structures in the earth's crust, not to mention its vast fossil graveyards. Zumberge noted:
"From a purely scientific point of view, it is unwise to accept uniformitarianism as unalterable dogma.… (One) should never close his mind to the possibility that conditions in post geological time were different than today … "2
A few geologists (Krynine, Bretz, Dachille, et al) had even earlier begun to call attention to certain strong geologic evidences of more than normal catastrophism in the geologic column. Even Lyell, of course, had recognized the significance of local floods, volcanic eruptions, etc., but had included these in his overall uniformitarian framework. Such phenomena as the "scabland" areas of Washington and the earth's many meteoritic scars, however, had begun to convince some geologists that even "ordinary" catastrophes were not the whole story.
The New Catastrophism
The recent revival of catastrophism seems to have been associated with a number of brilliant papers by Stephen Jay Gould, a geologist and historian of science with impeccable credentials. Gould first stressed the necessity to distinguish between uniformity of natural laws and uniformity of process rates.
"Uniformitarianism is a dual concept. Substantive uniformitarianism (a testable theory of geologic change postulating uniformity of rates of material conditions) is false and stifling to hypothesis formation. Methodological uniformitarianism (a procedural principle asserting spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws) belongs to the definition of science and is not unique to geology."3
It is interesting to note that writers on Biblical catastrophism have always stressed that they are only rejecting the concept of uniform rates, not that of uniformity in natural laws. Gould was merely repeating what catastrophists had long emphasized.
More recently, Gould has recognized this fact, while also calling attention to the devious methods by which Lyell and others in the 19th century had persuaded their contemporaries to reject Biblical catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism:
"Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate ... Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish ... In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists."4
Lest anyone misunderstand, it should be emphasized that Gould is neither a creationist nor a Biblical catastrophist. In fact he and other modern geological quasi-catastrophists are confident that their battle with the Bible has been won and that they can now safely and openly revert to catastrophism in their geological interpretations without the danger of appearing to support Biblical supernaturalism. Gould had said, for example:
"As a special term, methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm; for if God intervenes, then laws are not invariant and induction becomes invalid.… The term today is an anachronism.…"5 Read the entire article here.
An entire generation of Americans grew up being taught an imaginary geological column that is basically non-existent in the real world, and a theory of uniformitarianism that was unsupported by the evidence. They were led to believe that the rock layers were laid down over millions of years, gradually, by the laying down of dust and debris and other natural processes that continue to this day. This is, as we know now, a complete hoax.
As Dr. Morris mentioned, Uniformitarianism was a weapon in the holster of macroevolutionists to apply long ages to the earth and allow for the possibility of macroevolution. Now, of course, it is recognized that the rock layers are the remains of catastrophic water events. Creationists say, well of course, the year-long Biblical flood and its aftermath can account for these formations. Those who oppose creation must claim numerous different catastrophic events that somehow managed to leave their records all over the planet and yet could not have possibly been the Noahic Flood. Personally, I see this as a philosophical choice, ignoring the obvious explanation of the global flood because of the implications of allowing for the possibility of a Creator.
Uniformitarianism - Post Gradualism
In regards to Uniformitarianism, Warren D. Allmon writes, "As is now increasingly acknowledged, however, Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that because physical laws are constant in time and space and current processes should be consulted before resorting to unseen processes, it necessarily follows 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." ("Post Gradualism", Science, vol. 262, October 1, 1993, pg. 122).
Since the layers of sedimentary rock were all laid down by sudden water events and since the record of those events are found all over the world, one would think that science would begin considering the possibility of the Noahic Flood more seriously. Yet most scientists don't even consider this. The widely held view that macroevolution is a fact, erroneous that it may be, has kept most scientists from exploring this possibility.
Dr. Morris logically reached a conclusion here:
"The only real reason for imposing a billion-year time frame on the catastrophes is the necessity to provide time for evolution. As a matter of fact, the strata themselves show evidence of being a complex of interconnected and continuous regional catastrophes combining to comprise a global cataclysm.
In the first place, the rocks of all "ages" look the same. That is, there are rocks of all kinds, minerals of all kinds, structures of all kinds, in rocks of all ages.
Secondly, every formation grades, somewhere, up into another formation continuously without a time break. This follows from the fact that there is no worldwide "unconformity." An unconformity is a supposed erosional surface between two adjacent rock formations, representing a time break of unknown duration between deposition periods. It was once believed that such unconformities were, indeed, worldwide:
"In the early history of stratigraphy, unconformities were overestimated in that they were believed to represent coeval diastrophism over areas of infinitely wide extent."15
It is now known, however, that all such unconformities are of very limited extent, and furthermore, that they have no particular time significance.
"Many unconformity-bounded units are considered to be chrono-stratigraphic units in spite of the fact that unconformity surfaces inevitably cut across isochronous horizons and hence cannot be true chronostratigraphic boundaries."16
From these facts, a simple syllogistic line of reasoning can proceed as follows: (1) since every formation was produced rapidly and catastrophically; and (2) since every such formation somewhere grades into another above it without an interruption in the deposition process; and (3) since the whole (of the geologic column) is the sum of its parts; therefore (4) the entire geologic column was formed continuously and rapidly, in a worldwide interconnected complex of catastrophes."
That is the most logical interpretation of the rock layers found around the world. It is the one I ascribe to and it is the one that fits in nicely with the worldwide flood model. It just doesn't work too well with the hypothesis of macroevolution, which requires long, long ages and rocks laid down multiple millions of years apart.
The idea of an old earth, is based on this principle of uniformity. It was started by James Hutton's book "Theory of the Earth". The idea was later expanded on by Charles Lyell in his three-volume series "Principles of Geology" published 1830-1833. Charles Darwin took Lyell's books on the Beagle where it got him thinking about slow biological change known as gradualism."
James Hutton was perhaps the father of Uniformitarianism, but Charles Lyell was the husband and primary salesman. Between the two of them, they spearheaded the movement swept through the scientific community. But did it do so on merit, or because of the world view that was becoming more popular among scientists of that time?
Hutton’s a priori commitment to materialism
"In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:
‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added)
This philosophy was expounded and popularized by the influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology (3 volumes, 1830–33), which greatly influenced Darwin. The historian and philosopher of science, William Whewell, coined the term uniformitarianism for this philosophy in an (anonymous) review of Lyell’s second volume (Quarterly Review XLVII(93):126, March 1832). Uniformitarianism is a not a refutation of Biblical teaching on Creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations for the rocks and fossils we observe.
Reference - Hutton, J., ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965."
Hutton and Lyell were successful in getting the scientific community to climb on board the Uniformitarian bandwagon. But evidence just kept raising its ugly head. Way back in 1976, Dr. Henry Morris (a hydrololgist) wrote this:
The Uniformitarian Century
One of the surprising developments of the past decade has been the resurgence of catastrophism in geological interpretation. Although the great men who were the real founders of geology (Steno, Woodward, et al) were not only catastrophists but believed in the Noahic Flood as the most important geologic event in earth history, the principle of uniformitarianism has dominated geological thinking for the past 150 years. The Scottish agriculturalist, James Hutton, and then the British lawyer, Charles Lyell, persuaded their contemporaries to reject the Biblical chronology and its cataclysmic deluge in favor of very slow processes acting through aeons of time. In his widely used textbook, Zumberge stated as recently as 1963:
"Opposed to this line of thinking was Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), a contemporary of Cuvier, who held that earth changes were gradual, taking place at the same uniform slowness that they are today. Lyell is thus credited with the propagation of the premise that more or less has guided geological thought ever since, namely, that the present is the key to the past. In essence, Lyell's doctrine of uniformitarianism stated that past geological processes operated in the same manner and at the same rate they do today."1
Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophism was there in the rocks and it could not be ignored indefinitely. Uniformitarianism was proving sterile ¾ present processes operating at present rates simply could not explain the great geological formations and structures in the earth's crust, not to mention its vast fossil graveyards. Zumberge noted:
"From a purely scientific point of view, it is unwise to accept uniformitarianism as unalterable dogma.… (One) should never close his mind to the possibility that conditions in post geological time were different than today … "2
A few geologists (Krynine, Bretz, Dachille, et al) had even earlier begun to call attention to certain strong geologic evidences of more than normal catastrophism in the geologic column. Even Lyell, of course, had recognized the significance of local floods, volcanic eruptions, etc., but had included these in his overall uniformitarian framework. Such phenomena as the "scabland" areas of Washington and the earth's many meteoritic scars, however, had begun to convince some geologists that even "ordinary" catastrophes were not the whole story.
The New Catastrophism
The recent revival of catastrophism seems to have been associated with a number of brilliant papers by Stephen Jay Gould, a geologist and historian of science with impeccable credentials. Gould first stressed the necessity to distinguish between uniformity of natural laws and uniformity of process rates.
"Uniformitarianism is a dual concept. Substantive uniformitarianism (a testable theory of geologic change postulating uniformity of rates of material conditions) is false and stifling to hypothesis formation. Methodological uniformitarianism (a procedural principle asserting spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws) belongs to the definition of science and is not unique to geology."3
It is interesting to note that writers on Biblical catastrophism have always stressed that they are only rejecting the concept of uniform rates, not that of uniformity in natural laws. Gould was merely repeating what catastrophists had long emphasized.
More recently, Gould has recognized this fact, while also calling attention to the devious methods by which Lyell and others in the 19th century had persuaded their contemporaries to reject Biblical catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism:
"Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate ... Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish ... In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists."4
Lest anyone misunderstand, it should be emphasized that Gould is neither a creationist nor a Biblical catastrophist. In fact he and other modern geological quasi-catastrophists are confident that their battle with the Bible has been won and that they can now safely and openly revert to catastrophism in their geological interpretations without the danger of appearing to support Biblical supernaturalism. Gould had said, for example:
"As a special term, methodological uniformitarianism was useful only when science was debating the status of the supernatural in its realm; for if God intervenes, then laws are not invariant and induction becomes invalid.… The term today is an anachronism.…"5 Read the entire article here.
An entire generation of Americans grew up being taught an imaginary geological column that is basically non-existent in the real world, and a theory of uniformitarianism that was unsupported by the evidence. They were led to believe that the rock layers were laid down over millions of years, gradually, by the laying down of dust and debris and other natural processes that continue to this day. This is, as we know now, a complete hoax.
As Dr. Morris mentioned, Uniformitarianism was a weapon in the holster of macroevolutionists to apply long ages to the earth and allow for the possibility of macroevolution. Now, of course, it is recognized that the rock layers are the remains of catastrophic water events. Creationists say, well of course, the year-long Biblical flood and its aftermath can account for these formations. Those who oppose creation must claim numerous different catastrophic events that somehow managed to leave their records all over the planet and yet could not have possibly been the Noahic Flood. Personally, I see this as a philosophical choice, ignoring the obvious explanation of the global flood because of the implications of allowing for the possibility of a Creator.
Uniformitarianism - Post Gradualism
In regards to Uniformitarianism, Warren D. Allmon writes, "As is now increasingly acknowledged, however, Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that because physical laws are constant in time and space and current processes should be consulted before resorting to unseen processes, it necessarily follows 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." ("Post Gradualism", Science, vol. 262, October 1, 1993, pg. 122).
Since the layers of sedimentary rock were all laid down by sudden water events and since the record of those events are found all over the world, one would think that science would begin considering the possibility of the Noahic Flood more seriously. Yet most scientists don't even consider this. The widely held view that macroevolution is a fact, erroneous that it may be, has kept most scientists from exploring this possibility.
Dr. Morris logically reached a conclusion here:
"The only real reason for imposing a billion-year time frame on the catastrophes is the necessity to provide time for evolution. As a matter of fact, the strata themselves show evidence of being a complex of interconnected and continuous regional catastrophes combining to comprise a global cataclysm.
In the first place, the rocks of all "ages" look the same. That is, there are rocks of all kinds, minerals of all kinds, structures of all kinds, in rocks of all ages.
Secondly, every formation grades, somewhere, up into another formation continuously without a time break. This follows from the fact that there is no worldwide "unconformity." An unconformity is a supposed erosional surface between two adjacent rock formations, representing a time break of unknown duration between deposition periods. It was once believed that such unconformities were, indeed, worldwide:
"In the early history of stratigraphy, unconformities were overestimated in that they were believed to represent coeval diastrophism over areas of infinitely wide extent."15
It is now known, however, that all such unconformities are of very limited extent, and furthermore, that they have no particular time significance.
"Many unconformity-bounded units are considered to be chrono-stratigraphic units in spite of the fact that unconformity surfaces inevitably cut across isochronous horizons and hence cannot be true chronostratigraphic boundaries."16
From these facts, a simple syllogistic line of reasoning can proceed as follows: (1) since every formation was produced rapidly and catastrophically; and (2) since every such formation somewhere grades into another above it without an interruption in the deposition process; and (3) since the whole (of the geologic column) is the sum of its parts; therefore (4) the entire geologic column was formed continuously and rapidly, in a worldwide interconnected complex of catastrophes."
That is the most logical interpretation of the rock layers found around the world. It is the one I ascribe to and it is the one that fits in nicely with the worldwide flood model. It just doesn't work too well with the hypothesis of macroevolution, which requires long, long ages and rocks laid down multiple millions of years apart.