Science in Christian Perspective
Flood Geology is
Uniformitarian!
DAVIS A. YOUNG
Department of Physics
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Michigan
From: JASA 31 (September 1979): 146-152.
The principle of the uniformity of nature can be summed up in the
familiar statement,
"The present is the key to the past." Since the publication in 1830
of Principles of Geology by Charles Lyell most geologists have approached their
science, the study of the Earth, in terms of this principle. Modern geological
practice is uniformitarian1 in outlook.
Since the days of Lyell there have been individuals within and at the fringes
of the geological community who have challenged the validity of the principle
of uniformity in nature. Among these individuals, especially at the
present time,
are those who adhere to the theory of flood geology. These
individuals generally
wish to be considered as catastrophists.2
It is the contention of catastrophists that modern historical geology
is fundamentally
in error because of its adherence to the principle of uniformity. It
is said that
many of the conclusions of modern geology, for example, the great antiquity of
the Earth, are in error because they are based on this false principle. It is
argued that the principle of uniformity is incapable of explaining the observed
data of the rock record. It is said to be an inadequate explanatory principle.
Many catastrophists also charge that the principle of uniformity is
an unbiblical
principle and should therefore be abandoned, especially by those who
are Christians.
Thus uniformitarians are urged to reinterpret the data of geology in light of
the true and scriptural principle of catastrophism. Critics of modern geology
would suggest that we have, in the interpretation of the geological record, a
conflict between two diametrically opposed philosophies, catastrophism versus
uniformitarianism. Our differences are considered to be fundamentally
philosophical
differences.
In this paper we show that modern flood catastrophists3 do not really
understand
the principle of uniformity as it is generally used by geologists today, and we
shall show that even flood catastrophists, though they might deny it, subscribe
strongly to the principle of uniformity as it is applied in modern
geology. Modern
flood catastrophists are really uniformitarians who have falsely
interpreted the
geological evidence. The differences between modern flood
catastrophists and more
orthodox geologists are not so much differences of philosophy. The problem is
that flood catastrophists have avoided that vast body of evidence which is
contrary to their
preconceived theory.
Flood Geology's Challenge to Uniformitarianism
Flood catastrophists believe that the principle of uniformity is
lacking in explanatory
power. It is charged that it is an inadequate principle. For example, in a book
review of Franciscan and Related Rocks and their Significance in the Geology of
Western California, theologian Bernard Northrup begins by stating, "Seldom
has a book been written within the interpretative framework of
evolutionary macrochronological geology4 that has so effectively demonstrated the inadequacy of that framework
to explain the facts found in field research."' In yet another
paper on the
Sisquoc diatomite beds near Lompoc, California, Northrup says that he is
convinced that reality in geological time has been grossly misrepresented on the walls of the contemporary science classroom by the deceptive shadows of evolutionary uniformilarian time values. At Lompoc this distortion is remarkably evident. The fossils that were trapped in the abrupt deposition which left this unique graveyard tell a story violently contradictory to the classroom interpretation. Every fossil found supports a denial that it had been buried at a geological "snail's pace."
In a general discussion of sedimentation Henry Morris states that
the principle of uniformity turns out to be entirely inadequate right at this most important aspect of geologic interpretation. Modern processes of sedimentation are in general quite incapable of accounting for the sedimentary rocks of the geologic column. This is true whether the environment of deposition is thought to be geosynclinal, deltaic, lagoonal, or some other.7
Nevins comments that
the many contradictions encountered make the Principle of Uniformity unacceptable to the historical geologist. The principle which has long been considered the basis for historical geology has been shown to be inadequate.8
Steinhauer maintains regarding two aspects of uniformitarianism that "one
is at variance with observation; the other, though correlating with
many observations,
leads to logical and philosophical contradictions."9 And finally Whitcomb
and Morris repeatedly stress the inadequacy of uniformitarianism.
Regarding continental
ice sheets, "the principle of uniformity is once again woefully inadequate
to account for them."10 Regarding the formation of coal,
"the fundamental
axiom of uniformity, that the present is the key to the past, completely fails
to account for the phenomena.11 Thus we see that, according to
catastrophists,
the phenomena of sedimentation, fossilization, volcanism, tectonism, glaciation,
and the like, cannot be accounted for in terms of the principle of
uniformity.
It has also been charged that uniformitarian thinking is unbiblical.
Uniformitarianism
is thought to be a false unchristian philosophy. So, for example, Whitcomb and
Morris have appealed to II Peter 3:3-10 in support of this contention. In this
passage Peter warns that, in the last days, there would be scoffers who would
say, "Where is the promise of his (Jesus') coming? For since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of
the creation."
Peter then goes on to remind his readers of the flood judgment and of
the coming
final judgment. With regard to this passage, Whitcomb and Morris say,
Here again the Flood is used as a type and warning of the great coming worldwide destruction and judgment when the 'day of man' is over and the day of the Lord' comes, But the prophet is envisioning a time when, because of an apparent long delay, the 'promise of his coming' is no longer treated seriously. It is to become the object of crude scoffing and intellectual ridicule. It will be obvious to 'thinking men' in such a day that a great supernatural intervention of God in the world, as promised by Christ, is scientifically out of the question. That would be a miracle, and miracles contradict natural law!
And how do we know that miracles and divine intervention contradict natural law? Why, of course, because our experience shows and our philosophy postulates that 'all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation'! This is what we call our 'principle of uniformity,' which asserts that all things even from the earliest beginnings can be explained essentially in terms of present processes and rates. Even the Creation itself is basically no different from present conditions, since these processes are believed to have been operating since even the 'beginning of the creation.' There is no room for any miracle or divine intervention in our cosmology; therefore, the concept of a future coming of Christ in worldwide judgement and purgation is merely naive!12
Thus, at least in the view of Whitcomb and Morris, the principle of uniformity
is an unbiblical principle.
The solution to all of this is to accept the principle of catastrophe
and to reinterpret
the data of geology in terms of it. Now for catastrophists the
catastrophic principle
involves the idea of global catastrophe. This catastrophe, or at least one of
the catastrophes, is generally regarded as Noah's flood13 which
supposedly inundated
the whole Earth for about a year. During this period there was
catastrophic sedimentation,
volcanic activity, and mountain building. The catastrophic philosophy
is believed
to offer at least as good if not a superior explanatory principle for
accounting
for such phenomena as fossil graveyards, sediments, the mode of fossilization,
polystrate trees, mountains, volcanoes, and the like.
Modern flood catastrophists do not really understand the principle of uniformity as it is generally used by geologists today.
Thus Burdick, for example, says that
many of the vexing problems of stratigraphy would be solved if we simply took the evidence we see at face value instead of attempting to fit it into the concept of uniformitarianism made popular by Sir Charles Lyell. Lack of space forbids a discussion of all the simplifications resulting from a return to catastrophism.14
Rupke argues that the polystrate fossils "constitute strong arguments in favor of cataclysmal deposition, and, generally, support catastrophism as a scientific principle to interpret the earth's history.15 From the remainder of his paper it is evident that his cataclysm is the flood. And constantly we read statements like "The Flood seems to be a reasonable explanation for the deposition of widespread chert blankets"16 and
it is highly consonant with the whole character of the catastrophic action attending deposition of the Deluge sediments to infer that the processes of compaction, cementation, drying, etc. leading to final lithification could have been accomplished quite rapidly.17
Many catastrophists would also maintain that the principle of
catastrophe, unlike
the principle of uniformity, is a biblical principle.18 It is
maintained that
the Bible teaches a purely miraculous creation which took only 144
hours, a fall
of Adam with catastrophic implications, and a catastrophic worldwide
deluge. Thus
Christian geologists in particular are urged to give up the principle
of uniformity
and adopt the principle of catastrophe.
Flood Geology's Understanding of Uniformitarianism
Just precisely what is it about the principle of uniformity to which
flood catastrophists
object? What does the catastrophist understand by the principle of uniformity?
Again we need to turn to their writings for the answer.
In his discussion of uniformity Steinhauer
suggests that it is possible for the assumption of uniformity to be overextended and overextrapolated, leading to a simplistic or even grossly inaccurate view of the universe. This is indeed the case when scientists propose that those process rates and conditions presently observable have always operated in the same way or with the same intensity.19
Steinhauer asks us to consider this assumption that process rates and material conditions are uniform and invariant when viewed on a global scale. He argues that process rates depend on material conditions so that as the latter vary so must the former. Process rates cannot thus be uniform since material conditions have varied. He gives us examples such as human population growth to show us that the rates of global phenomena do change. This assumption of a uniformity of process rates is a "titanic extrapolation, a blind leap of faith that contradicts what is observable in the universe. A few scientists have recently become aware of this leap and abandoned it.20 In another paper Steinhauer states that
evidence comes from every quarter that the history of Earth's crust is one of trauma and cataclysm. Geologists have assembled a great volume of facts supporting global catastrophism. This is in spite of the domination of their science by the uniformitarian axiom of a peaceful Earth history.21
Elsewhere he says "some kinds of sediment are not being formed
today, which
contradicts an axiom of uniformitarianism.''22
Nevins has also discussed uniformity at great length. He charges that "the
possibility of catastrophic events during this evolutionary
development is rejected.
Characteristic of this limited thinking is the reliance on the
Principle of Uniformity
as a basic assumption."23 He says that "the Principle
of Uniformity
sternly rejects any catastrophic event like the Flood."24 Nevins then
goes on to discuss at great length an aspect of uniformitarianism
that has recently
been termed substantive uniformitarianisrn.25 Basically substantive
uniformitarianism
is the idea that the processes and process rates of the present may
be extrapolated
indefinitely into the past and that geologic phenomena may be
sufficiently accounted
for in terms of a uniformity through time of processes and process rates. Such
process rates are very slow and not cataclysmic since modern day
rates are presumably
rather slow in general. In opposition to substantive uniformitarianism, Nevins
says that the fossil record indicates "rapid changes of
environments rather
than... slow and uniform change."26 Also,
evidence of continental glaciation shows that a colder climate existed at one time. There is abundant geologic evidence of former catastrophic events. Rock formations show current structures which indicate that transcontinental flood conditions once prevailed. Critics of substantive uniformitarianism have found fossil graveyards, trees buried by massive lava flows, frozen mammoths in Arctic regions, and many other exceptions to a strict adherence to the substantive uniformitarian view. The great mass of evidence indicating catastrophe has been largely ignored by geologists.
Actually, the assumption that process rates must be uniform is without scientific backing. There is no scientific law which requires a natural event always so proceed at constant rate. A scientific law only describes an event under a fixed set of conditions and as conditions vary so does the rate. Conditions, not scientific law, determine the rate of a process.27
Finally, Nevins says that "the substantive uniformitarianism of Hutton and Lyell was an a priori assumption formed not upon evidence but upon a preconceived opinion of how nature must ideally operate if we are to study it by inductive means."28 And
the principle of simplicity and consideration of the evidence of the fossil record logically establishes a catastrophe similar to Noah's Flood recorded in Genesis. This hypothesis, however, must be carefully tested only from evidence contained in the rocks. By no means should the old argument of Lyell (substantive uniformitarianism) be used to deny the reality of the Flood .29
In his paper on the Sisquoc diatomite beds, Northrup gives us an inkling of his understanding of uniformitarianism when he discusses fossilization.
It is deposition of fossils in the normal bedding plane of the diatomite that first suggested that these fishes and birds had simply fallen to the bottom after death, to be slowly covered by the slow 'rain' or 'snow' of diatom structures from the waters above. There are several factors, however, that make this simple uniformitarian explanation impossible.
First, the perfect condition of the bodies of the fossilized fish repudiates slow deposition. . The supposed gradual deposition of millions of carcasses, untouched by other bottom feeding fishes, and their painfully slow burial by the postulated 1/1500 to 1/2 inch per year deposition rate simply is not possible. . Secondly, there are fossils found which show that the rate of deposition was extremely rapid. Some are clearly deposited by a violent action which has torn scales and even removed fins from the body.30
For Whitcomb and Morris, the idea of uniformity is essentially that
geomorphic processes which can be observed in action at present, such as erosion, sedimentation, glaciation, volcanism, diastrophism, ctc,-all operating in essentially the same fashion as at present-can be invoked to explain the origin and formation of all the earth's geologic deposits. The doctrine of uniformity thus is supposed to render unnecessary any recourse to catastruphism, except on a minor scale.31
Modern flood catastrophists are really uniformitarians who have falsely interpreted the geological evidence.
Further on they say "Historical geology purports to explain all of the earth's geologic formations in terms of the essentially uniform operation of processes of nature that are now occurring and can be studied at the present time32 and
Thus it is now believed that the present-day geomorphic processes (including erosion, deposition, volcanism, diastrophism, etc.), acting essentially in the same manner and at the same rates as at present, can suffice to account for all she earth's physiographic features when properly studied and correlated.33
Finally they say "It is processes such as these which the
uniformity concept
asserts can explain the earth's stratified and massive rock
formations. Our basic
objection to this contention, however, is that the character and
rates of activity
of the processes cannot have been the same in the past as in the present."34
It is quite clear from these selections and indeed from most flood
catastrophist
writings that uniformitarianism is generally understood as meaning substantive
uniformitarianism-the idea of uniformity of processes through time
and also uniformity
of intensity or rates of processes through time. The processes and
rates are basically
those presently observable. As a result catastrophists seem to think
that uniformitarians
postulate very slow process rates and a very peaceful Earth history
in which there
are virtually no catastrophes. Indeed flood catastrophists almost seem to think
that uniformitarians a priori reject the very possibility of great
catastrophes.
And they seem to think that uniformitarianism means that there must be forming
in the world somewhere today an example of every kind of rock found
in the geological
record since the present is the key to the past and present process rates were
the same in the past. They seem to think, therefore, that since chert
is supposedly
not forming in the world today,35 uniformitarianism is somehow
contradicted.
They seem to think that very rapid, violent processes are
inconsistent with uniformitarianism.
They seem to think that evidence for catastrophe is inconsistent with
uniformitarianism.
Modern Geology Rejects Substantive Uniformitarianism
Now substantive uniformitarianism, as we have seen, has been attacked
repeatedly
by modern day catastrophists because they seem to think it is the principle to
which modern geologists subscribe. The subtle implication is that,
since substantive
uniformitarianism is incorrect, therefore flood catastrophism is
probably correct,
as if we had to choose between these two alternatives alone. Now the
fact of the
matter is that substantive uniformitarianism is an incorrect principle. It is
not in accord with the facts of nature. There are many geologic phenomena which
cannot be accounted for in terms of uniformity of rates through geologic time.
So, for example, the earlier part of solar system history and of Earth history
was a time of far more intense meteorite bombardment than at present. Volcanic
activity of the moon certainly was far more intense early in its history. Such
activity on the moon is virtually extinct now. Core formation in the Earth has
no doubt virtually ceased. Such a process may have been extremely rapid during
the earliest stages of Earth history. Continental drift may not have occurred
at all dufing early Earth history, whereas it does occur now. Glaciation rates
have certainly varied enormously through time. Thus catastrophists like Nevins
are quite right when they charge that the viewpoint of substantive
uniformitarianism
is an imposition on nature as to how it should behave. At least this is so to
the extent that substantive uniformitarianism becomes an a priori
principle which
we impose on nature before actually looking at the evidence contained
in the rocks.
It may well be that Lyell and some other geologists of his time and
of succeeding
years adhered to what might be termed substantive uniformitarianism. It is even
possible that many geologists rejected the very possibiility of great
catastrophes
on principial grounds even before studing the phenomena of the rocks carefully
enough. Perhaps Lyell may have been guilty of this to a certain extent.36
But as time went on Lyell gradually backed away from his earlier position and
began to recognize that the rates of processes had varied through
time much more
than he had recognized previously. It is even possible that a few
geologists today
cling to substantive uniformitarianism and would reject the
possibility of major
catastrophes in Earth history. All this is somewhat irrelevant, however.
Flood catastrophists spend considerable effort in beating a dead horse, because it is highly questionable whether any significant number of geologists has held to anything like substantive uniformitarianism for a number of years.
The fact of the matter is that flood catastrophists spend considerable effort
in beating a dead horse, because it is highly questionable whether
any significant
number of geologists has held to anything like substantive
uniformitarianism for
a number of years.37 The geologic community does not think in
terms of substantive uniformitarianism.
When a geologist goes out to look at rocks he does not go out with a
preconceived
notion that present processes must always have operated at the same intensity
throughout history. Nor does he go out with a preconceived notion that a great
catastrophe (or several of them) cannot have happened. If geologists
do not subscribe
to the flood geology theory, it is likely that they are persuaded
that the totality
of the evidence argues against it, not because they approach geology
with a preconceived
idea as to what rates of processes must have been like. Geologists hardly feel
that sedimentation and burial of fossils must always and everywhere have been
excruciatingly slow, peaceful, and non-violent. Geologists hardly
feel that just
because chert and dolomite are not formed to any significant extent today that
this poses a serious threat to the uniformity of nature. Geologists hardly rule
out the possibility of great catastrophes.
The flood catastrophists have noted that a few scientists have seen
the weakness
of substantive uniformitarianism and have given it up. This is an
understatement
of tremendous (shall we say catastrophic!) magnitude. The geologic
community had
given it up long ago. One might even question whether the geologic community as
a whole ever did enthusiastically adhere to substantive uniformitarianism. The
brand of uniformitarianism of which flood catastrophists accuse geologists is
not generally held. Catastrophists attack a straw man.
Methodological Uniformitarianism
If the geological community has abandoned substantive uniformitarianism, however,
are we not then driven into the camp of the catastrophists, as they would seem
to imply? By no means. Modern geologists are still uniformitarians.
They generally
adhere to what Gould has termed methodological uniformitarianism.39 Briefly stated
this is simply the idea that the laws of nature are invariant in time
and space40
and that Earth processes of the past behave in accord with those laws just as
they do now. Catastrophists have been far more reticent about
attacking this aspect
of uniformitarianism than substantive uniformitariansim and with good reason,
for to attack this principle is to begin undermining the very
foundation of science
itself. In fact Morris has said that "true uniformity has to do with the
inviolability of natural law (e.g., the laws of thermodynamics), and not to the
uniformity of process rates."41 Elsewhere Morris speaks of
methodological
uniformitarianism as the true uniformitarianism.42 Steinhauer has
some reservations
about methodological uniformitarianism to the extent that it excludes
divine intervention
into the world, but recognizing that there must be some kind of uniformity in
order to make science possible, he substitutes a scriptural principle
of uniformity
which again stresses the regularity of nature and the laws which God
has implanted
into the structure of the universe.43
The Christian geologist who adheres to the principle of
methodological uniformitarianism
in his scientific work must not, of course, make it a complete
philosophy of life.
To adhere to methodological uniformitarianism for geological study
does not mean
that I must reject the possibility of all miracles. I do believe that God has
performed miracles in which He suspended His laws, but I still accept the idea
of uniformity of law in the universe since God first created the initial stuff
of the universe. God
A firm commitment to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible does not require flood catastrophists to believe the theories of Creation and the Flood to which they doggedly hold.
is very economical with miracles. Miracles in the Scripture are usually closely
tied in with the history of redemption and have little if any bearing
on geological
history. The catastrophists have not proved from the Bible the contention that
creation, the fall, and the flood were shot through and through with all kinds
of miracles in which God dispensed with the laws of nature as definitely as is
the case with, say, the floating axehead and the virgin birth and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. When I look at rocks, I have no reason to believe
from the Bible
that what I am looking at is the result of a whole series of miracles.44 In
order for geology to be a science we must operate with methodological
uniformitarianism.
But this does not compel us to reject God or the supernatural.
If we are to look at the Earth's past scientifically, we must
interpret the formation
of rocks and landforms in terms of processes which are either known to us now
or are somehow conceivable in terms of the laws of nature. Processes analogous
to those of the present may be consistent with such laws. The rates
of those processes
must be consistent with the laws of nature although not necessarily
constant throughout
time and not necessarily even slow. This is all we ask of
methodological uniformitarianism.
The processes and rates and material conditions are inferred from the evidence
of the rock record. None of this implies an a priori rejection of catastrophes
of a global scale. If there have been such catastrophes, all we ask
is that those
catastrophes be interpretable in terms of the laws of mechanics,
dynamics, optics,
meteorology, chemistry, electricity, and so on. Methodological
uniformitarianism
cannot a priori reject the flood geology theory without looking at rocks. After
all floods are processes which occur in nature in accordance with laws. It is
clear from their writings that catastrophists generally try to
interpret the Flood
in terms of natural law even though the Flood was sent as a divine
judgment.45
There is little attempt to treat the Flood as a pure miracle in which natural
law was suspended.
Flood Catastrophists are Uniformitarians
Modern flood catastrophists are really proceeding on the same
principle as modern
geologists. We both accept the idea that rocks should be explicable in terms of
processes that behave in accord with the laws of nature. It is clear
that catastrophists
are talking in terms of a modern day observable process, a flood, and that this
flood behaves in accordance with natural laws. The only difference is
one of scale.
But they expect their flood to do things that floods do. And so we
find statements
such as the following by Nevins in reference to certain layers of rock rich in
fossil clams:
How was this clam layer formed? The best explanation seems to be that the clams were washed into their present location and buried alive. If the clams had died prior to burial, the shells would have been open rasher than tightly closed. The clams most have been transported because they could not have lived amassed in the layer in which they are found. Turbulent and flowing water seems to be the only mechanism which could rapidly transport and deposit heavy objects like clams. Some catastrophe like she Flood seems to be a most reasonable explanation.46
In spite of the appeal to catastrophe, this is uniformitarian thinking if ever
there were such. The appeal is not to the unknown and the unknowable, but the
appeal is from the geological evidence to experience with modern day processes,
i.e., washing, the way clams die, turbulent transportation in water, and so on.
Nevins' appeal is to knowable and known processes with which we have experience
in the modern world, processes that he expects to have behaved in the past as
they behave today because they obey the laws of nature.
Also notice what Nevins says in regard to graded bedding and turbidites,
It is noteworthy that the Flood would have generated turbidity currents as well as conditions very similar to turbidity currents. The waters of the Flood would have stirred up a heavy and viscous load of sediment. When the turbidity of the waters decreased, very rapid deposition would have occurred over vast areas. Minor oscillations in current would have introduced new sediment which could have been deposited on previous beds producing the characteristic repeating graded beds.47
Notice how frequently "would have" is used. Again Nevins
can say "would
have" with some degree of confidence because in uniformitarian fashion he
is appealing not to some unknowable miraculous occurrence but to his experience
with present day observable phenomena and processes. Nevins' flood acts the way
we would expect flooding waters to behave. It produces the kinds of phenomena
we would expect a great flood to produce.
Or take this statement from Whitcomb and Morris regarding the
formation of evaporites
from brines:
...perhaps it is not too presumptuous to suggest that these unusual brines may have been generated during the volcanic upheavals accompanying the Deluge and that unusual conditions of vaporization and separation of precipitates may likewise have been caused by the locally high temperatures accompanying these same upheavals.48
Again it is clear that we have no appeal to miracle, but
uniformitarian construction
of a hypothesis appealing to knowable processes which operate in
accord with natural
laws. When we speak of high temperatures generated by volcanic activity, and of
vaporization of water and precipitation of chemicals caused by those
high temperatures,
we are arguing on the basis of our experience of present processes, and in so
doing we are doing what any modern uniformitarian geologist does.
This is not to say that flood geologists are consistent uniformitarians, for they
are not, but they are uniformitarians nonetheless. They are not
always consistent
in making reasonable inferences from the geological data in terms of
natural processes
and laws. We find them making their most reasonable inferences when
the data seem
to support their preconceived flood hypothesis. Then they become
quite consistent
uniformitarians when it is so convenient. But we find them making
their most outrageous
inferences when the data flatly contradict their flood hypothesis.
Even then their
false reasonings are cast in terms of natural laws and they argue in terms of
what
"would have" happened. Thus when it is not so convenient,
flood catastrophists
become less consistent, but even then they cannot escape being uniforinitarians.
Some further examples should help to illustrate that this is so. As
we saw earlier,
Northrup argued that dismembered fossil fishes implied turbulent water action
and rapid burial. Very well preserved fishes also implied rapid
burial. He thought
all this was against uniformitarianism, but it is not. It is very
good uniformitarian
thinking in spite of the fact that he attributes this violence and rapidity of
deposition to the Flood. It is uniformitarian because he argues from evidence
to what would likely happen in the world today. Very turbulent water action and
rapid burial probably would dismember some fish and preserve them
from predation
of scavengers. Flood catastrophists are often very consistent uniformitarians
when dealing with stratigraphy. Sometimes one gets the impression
that they think
stratigraphy is the only aspect of geology.
The consistency of their uniformitarianism deteriorates when we move into other
aspects of geology. For example, Barnes maintains that the Earths
magnetic moment
has steadily and exponentially decreased from an astronomically high value at
creation only a few thousand years ago to its current value.49 He wants to
show that the Earth is very young. Of course, one could counter that
the evidence
from radiocarbon dating alone shows that the Earth has been in existence much
more than just a few thousand years, thus bringing into question the whole idea
of recent creation. But, reasoning in uniformitarian fashion, Barnes
argues that
increased values of the magnetic moment in the past would increase
the shielding
effect of the Earth from cosmic rays. Since cosmic rays would be deflected away
from the Earth's atmosphere, there would be less carbon 14 production
in the upper
atmosphere. This, in turn, would completely upset radiocarbon dating.
Other flood
catastrophists such as Whitelaw have expressed similar ideas.
They
criticize the
validity of radiocarbon dates because of what Earth's magnetic field would do
to cosmic ray production during the Flood. Now Barnes, Whitelaw, and the other
catastrophists have not done a good job of interpreting the scientific evidence
in this area. Their inferences and conclusions are wrong because they
have neglected
abundant archaeological and geological evidence from the field of
paleomagnetics
which clearly indicates that the Earth's magnetic moment has not
decreased exponentially
from the beginning but has fluctuated greatly throughout time. Yet in spite of
their distortion of and ignoring of the total magnetic evidence the
catastrophists
have unavoidably reasoned from the evidence which they choose to consider in a
uniformitarian manner. They constantly stress the causal
interrelationship between
the magnetic field, cosmic rays, and carbon 14. Barnes, Whitelaw, and
the others
speak in terms of such causal interrelationships not only at present but in the
past as well. In other words they accept the idea that the same laws
of magnetics
that are in existence now were in existence in the past and that
cosmic rays and
radiocarbon production responded in accordance with those laws. This
kind of thinking
clearly makes uniformitarians out of the catastrophists. They are
arguing in the
same way as modern geologists do except that they ignore or distort
the evidence
which contradicts their most fundamental world hypothesis.
Why the Big Difference of Opinion?
One would think that if modern geologists do not, as many perhaps did years ago, insist that rates of processes be slow so that no
global catastrophes are needed, and if we have no a priori principial objection
to the possibility of a global catastrophe, and if flood
catastrophists and modern
geologists both argue essentially from methodological uniformitarian premises,
then there would not be such a great rift between us. Why do we see the history
of the Earth so very differently? I think the answer is basically simple. The
flood catastrophists are unwilling to read the totality of the
available evidence properly.50 They are unwilling to abandon their hypothesis even
when the evidence
has made it untenable. They have ignored or distorted a vast body of evidence
which is contrary to their preconceived notion of what Earth history is like.
They have focussed only on what is favorable to their own theory.
They claim continually
to argue from the evidence, from the facts of nature, but they ignore what is
inconvenient for them. It is true that many phenomena of the sedimentary rock
record might be interpretable in terms of a great flood. But many of
the phenomena
to which they appeal, such as fossil graveyards and graded bedding, are easily
explicable in terms of much smaller scale processes than global
catastrophic floods.
More importantly flood catastrophists have ignored abundant evidence of glacial
deposits, lake deposits, desert deposits, delta deposits, shore deposits, reef
deposits, and evaporate deposits in the rock record. The presence of
these argues
completely against a global flood having deposited almost the totality of the
sedimentary rock pile. Catastrophists have ignored the evidence from heat flow
from cooling magmas, metamorphism, and the kinetics of mineral formation. They
have tried desperately to make the evidence from radiometric dating
say something
opposite from what it does say. Although a fraction of the geological evidence
might suggest the global flood, the overwhelming totality of the
evidence argues
mightily against it.51 I would impress upon the flood catastrophist that a
firm commitment to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible does
not require
them to believe the theories of Creation and the Flood to which they doggedly
hold. The data of the Bible certainly do not demand that we hold to
these views.
I wish that all Christian scientists could learn to relax a little bit and stop
being afraid that somehow or other some scientific evidence will disprove the
Bible. Let's not be afraid to follow the evidence that God has put
into His world.
Failing this, the only recourse that flood catastrophists have to
save their theory
is to appeal to pure miracle and thus torpedo the very possibility of
historical
geology.
NOTES
'The sense in which I use the terms "uniformity" and
"uniformitarianism"
will become clearer through the paper. There has been a great deal of
discussion
of the meaning of these and allied terms and of the statement,
"The present
is the key to the past" among geologists. No doubt many geologists would
reject my using the terms "uniformity" and "uniformstarianism"
as I do. But this is basically irrelevant because I am not so much interested
in terms as I am in principles, and the principle which I enumerate
and call uniformitarianism
is one that is nearly unanimously agreed upon by geologists. For some
interesting
discussions of the idea of uniformitarianism see G. Simpson,
"uniformitarianism.
An Inquiry Into Principle, Theory, and Method in Geohistory and Biohtstory,"
in M.K. Uecht and W. C. Sleere, eds., Essays in Evolution and Genetics in Honor
of Theodosius Dobzhansky, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1970, p.
43-96; and
also R. Hooykaas, "Catastrophism in Geology, Its Scientific Character in
Relation to Actualism and uniformitarianism," Koninklijke
Nederlandse Akademie
van wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, Med. (n.r.), v.33, 1970, p. 271-316. Both
these papers
have been reprinted in CC. Albritton, Jr., ed. Philosophy of Geohistory:
1785-1970, Dowden, Hutehinson, and Ross, Strondsburg,
Penn., 1975,386p.
2in this paper I am using the term "eatastrophist" in
reference to those
who believe that Earth history has been overwhelmingly dominated by a very few
global catastrophes, primarly the flood. I hesitate to do this since
modern geologists
certainly believe in the existence of past and present catastrophes
and therefore
might legitimately be called catastrophists. With tongue very much in check we
might call the former oligomacrocatastrophi.sts, those who believe in a few big
catastrophes, and the latter polyrnicrocatastrophists, those who believe in a
lot of little catastrophes! Even the latter term is really
unsatisfactory because
many modern geologists think there may also have been very large if not global
catasrophes.
3We are here thinking of such men as John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris, Donald
W. Patten, Melvin A. Cook, Duane Gish, and most members of the
Creation Research
Society.
4For Northrup, "evolutionary macrochronological" is the
same as "uniformitarian."
5B.E. Northrup, "Franciscan and Related Rocks, and Their Significance in
the Geology of Western California:" a book review, in G.F. Howe,
ed., Speak
to the Earth, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975, p. 253.
6B.E. Northrup, "The Sisquoc Diatomite Fossil Beds," in G.F. Howe, ed.,
op. cit., p.3.
7F1.M. Morris, "Sedimentation and the Fossil Record: a Study in
Hydraulic
Engineering," in W. E. Lammerts, ed., Why Not Creation?, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970, p. 123.
8E Nevins, "A Scriptural Groundwork for Historical Geology," in
D.W. Palten, ed., Symposium on Creation V, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1970, p.
97.
9L.C. Steinhauer, "Is Unformily Meaningful?" in D.W.
Patten, ed., Symposium
on Creation F, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1975, p. 89.
10J.C. Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, Presbyterian
and Reformed,
Philadelphia, 1962, p. 143.
11Ibid., p. 165.
12Ibid., p.452.
13Those who hold to the gap theory also propose the existence of
global catastrophes,
but these are associated with the supposed judgment of Lucifer in
Genesis 1 rather
than with she flood of Noah.
14C. Burdick, "Streamlining Stratigraphy," in W.E. Lammerts,
ed. Scientific
Studies in Special Creation, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971, p. 125.
15N. A. Rupke, "Prolegomena to a Study of Cataclysmal
Sedimentation."
in WE. Lammerts, ed., Why Not Creation?, p. 164.
16.E. Nevins, "Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood," in D.W. Patten,
ed., Symposium on Creation 111, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, p. 613.
17Whitcomb and Morris, op. cit., p. 408.
18See e.g., L.C. Steinhaner, "The case for Global Catastrophism,"
in D.W. Patten, ed., Symposium on Creation V, p. 99-109.
19Steinhauer, ''Is Uniformity Meaningful'?," p. 85.
20Ibid. p90.
21Steinhaner, "The Case for Global Catastrophism," p. 106-107,
22Ibid., p. 107.
23Nevins, "A Scriptural Groundwork for Historical
Geology," p. 80.
24Ibid., p. 81.
25J Gould, "Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?," American
Journal of Science, v. 263, 1965, p. 223-228. In this very important article
Gould has carefully
distinguished between substantive uniformitarianism and
methodological uniformitarianism.
The meaning of these terms is explained in the text of our paper.
26Nevins op. cit., p. 88.
27Ibid., p. 88.
28Ibid., p. 90.
29Ibid., p.99.
30Northrup, "The Sisquoc Diatomite Fossil Beds," p.7-S.
31Whitcomb and Morris, op, cit., p. 130-131.
32Ibid., p. 136-137
33Ibid., p. 137.
34Ibid., p. 200.
35Actually, an example of modern day chert precipitation has been reported.
See M.N.A. Peterson and C.C. von der Borch, "Chert: Modern
Inorganic Deposition
in a Carbonate-precipitating Locality," Science, v. 149, 1965,
p. 1501-1503.
36In saying this I want to make clear that LyrIl did not first dream up the
idea of uniformity and then go and force it on the rocks because of
some philosophical
revulsion to catastrophism. Lyell was first attracted into geology by
the Oxford
geologist, William Buckland, a leading catastrophist! Lyell thus
probably started
out under the catastrophist influence but the many field studies and
observations
he carried out on past geological phenomena and present processes in the decade
prior to the publication of Principles of Geology led him to the
realization that
operation of present processes could more easily account for geological facts
than the cataclysmic hypothesis. For a helpful paper see L.G. Wilson, "The
Origins of Charles Lyell's Unuformitananism," in C.C. Albritton,
ed., Uniformity
and Simplicity, Special paper 89, Geol. Soc. America, New York, 1967,
p. 35-62.
37Three recent introductory texts make this quite clear. See, for example,
F. Press and R. Siever, Earth, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1974, p. 6162. They
say, "Uniformitarianism, as we understand it today, does not hold that the
rates of geological processes or their precise nature had to be the same."
See also S. Jndson, KS. Deffeyes, and R.B. Hargraves, Physical Geology, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976, p. 1819, and R.F. Flint and B.J.
Skinner, Physical Geology, 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York, 1977, p. 84-85. The latter
text says, ''The
more we learn of Earth's history, the more we must question whether the rates
of all cycles have always been the same as they are now. The evidence
seems against
constancy, and some rates may once have been more rapid, others much
slower."
38Just to see what a colleague would say, I asked him if he
rejected the possibility
of global catastrophes on a priori principial grounds. He said no. Then I said,
"So then you would reject catastrophes because of the geological
evidence."
He replied that that wasn't true either because he had seen many catastrophes.
I said that those are only small-scale catastrophes. He then said
that he thought
anything was possible and that he thought there might have been great
catastrophes
in the past. For example, he thought the Earth passing through a comet's tail
might have some devastating effects and thus be considered as a
global catastrophe.
This is hardly a rejection of catastrophes, and yet my colleague also thinks of
himself as a nniformitarian!
39Gould, op. cit.
40Naturally one could write at great length about the meaning of
this statement.
I do not mean to imply that every law is everywhere and always
applicable. There
are many situations where, for example, the ideal gas law does not pertain to the situation. All the statement blends to say is that God created a lawbound
universe in which the laws of the past are continuous with those of
the present.
This could even mean that as the configuration of the universe
changes, some laws
have systematically varied as a function of time just as some laws are a function
of scale. But this only means that the law which is varying is dependent on a
higher, more over-arching law.
41H. M. Morris, "Science versus Scientism in Historical
Geology," in WE. Lammerts, ed., Scientific Studies in Special Creation, p. 109.
42Ibid., p.111.
43Steinhauer, "Is Uniformity Meaningful?,'' p.92.
44I have attempted to develop this point at great length in my book, D.A.
Young, Creation and the Flood, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977, 217 p.
45An example of this is Patten's attempt to explain catastrophes in
terms of errant
movements of bodies within the solar system.
46Nevins, "Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood,'' p. 37.
47Ibid., p.43
48Whitcomb and Morris, op. cit., p.41?.
49T.G. Barnes, "Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Moment and the
Geochronological
Implications," in G.F. Howe, ed., Speak to the Earth, p.
p. 300-313.
50My impression is that flood catastrophists feel that the Bible can't possibly
not be teaching the views they hold on creation and the flood. I almost teem to
detect a fear that nature might really be saying something different from what
they think the Bible is saying and that, if this is the case, the Bible would
be wrong and the whole Christian faith would fall to the ground.
Hence a struggle
to prop up the faith by "reinterpreting" the evidence. I
sincerely hope
lam wrong, but this is what I tense.
51By no means does this mean that I necessarily do not think the flood was
global to some extent. It only meant I reject the common
catastrophist viewpoint
which sees nearly all sedimentary rocks formed as a result of the flood. In my
judgment if the flood truly was global then we ought to look for the evidence
where we might expect to find it, namely, among Pleistocene or Recent deposits.
Even then, I'm not sure how well we could recognize it.