Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
The Changing Content of Catastrophism
Warren H. Johns
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI 48823
From: JASA 27
(December 1975): 192.
A recent article (June Journal) caught my eye, entitled, "The Doctrine of
Special Creation," by Richard Aulie, because of its subtitle,
"Catastrophism."
Many diverging opinions on catastrophism exist today, and have existed in the
past, while being poles apart. It is commonly misunderstood, but not
all diluvialists
are catastrophists. Those who are dubbed "deluge
geologists" today cannot
be equated with the "catastrophists" of the early
nineteenth century, since the latter almost unanimously believed in
numerous cataclysmic
events. The early geologist Conybeare spoke of "three deluges before the
Noachian." (Quoted in Haber, P. 216) Diluvialists today speak
almost unanimously
of one single deluge.
The thesis of Aulie-that the authors of Biology: a Search for Order
in Complexity
should have resorted to nineteenth-century diluvialists for their
weaponry-is rather
far-fetched and antiquarian in nature. They certainly would not want to depend
upon Cuvier, the father of catastrophism, because it would be like
placing their
weight upon a reed that would split and then pierce them. It is
doubtful whether
Cuvier actually believed in the Biblical deluge, according to one historian of
science, M. J. S. Rudwick (see his book The Meaning of Fossils, pp. 133 ff.).
Aulie mentions the French title of Cuvier's book which came out in 1812, but it
would be instructive to add that in 1813 Robert Jameson published the English
edition, in the process transforming it by infusing it with numerous references
to the Biblical flood. Since then most historians have become acquainted with
Cuvier via Jameson; they have been misled into thinking that Cuvier
was attempting
to prove the Biblical account, which he was not, if the original French edition
is considered.
William Buckland, although a gigantic figure of his day, is a poor one to turn
toward for diluvialist support. Aulie omitted the well-known fact that Buckland
abandoned catastrophism, and what Aulie did include misrepresents him
on a couple
points. He mentions Buekland's 1836 widely-read work as "arguing
for a universal
deluge." Historians today would not agree on this matter with
Aulie. "When
Buckland's Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology
was published in 1836, it was evident that he had reversed himself on
Diluvialism
and had completely abandoned Biblical chronology in prehistory..?' (Haber, pp.
220-221) It would be even better to let Buckland speak for himself,
the following
quote being from the same book published in 1836:
"Several hypotheses have been proposed, with a view of reconciling the phenomena of Geology, with the brief account of creation which we find in the Mosaic narrative. Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is isreconciltable with the enormous thickness and almost in
finite subdivisions of these strata . (p. 16)
Aulie's statement that Buckland "tried to show how the successive fossil
record matched the Genesis account" is the very opposite of the picture as
presented by Buckland a page or two further. He mentions: "A third opinion
has been suggested, both by learned theologians and by geologists ... that the
order of succession of the organic remains of a former world, accords with the
order of creation required in Genesis." (p. 17) Then he goes on
to demonstrate
that the two sets of sequences-that of Genesis and that of
geology-cannot be reconciled
because marine animals precede the evidence of vegetable remains in
the geological
record while Scripture has the latter first. Thus the days of creation cannot
be stretched into geological periods (p. 18).
If neither Cuvier nor Buckland could come to the rescue of diluvialists today,
neither would the third individual cited by Aulie, the glaciologist
Louis Agassis.
His catastrophism was even more complex than his forefathers, admitting up to
twenty catastrophes. It is interesting that the one who led Buckland
to attribute
the so-called "drift" deposits to glacial action and not to diluvial
action was Agassiz himself (see Cannon, pp. 48, 50). Agassis' catastrophism was
a unique brand.
It would be well if the writer and readers alike of the article
referring to the
highly controversial issue of "catastrophism" would be aware of its
changing spectrum as the issues shifted, so that it is now several wavelengths
apart from its roots in the early nineteenth century. True, the catastrophism
of Bucklassd and Agassiz is today obsolete.