>How so? In the early 1800's Lyell published his works and established
>modern Geology on a firm uniformitarian footing. Before him, in the late
>1700's we have the father of geology James Hutton, who unconsciously
>paraphrasing 2Pet 3:3, 4, stated that in the history of the world he saw
>"no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" Where is the switch
>from diluvial geology to flood geology?
Art, like any change in paradigms, not everyone fell on the floor
immediately and paid homage to Lyell, saying, "Oh golly how could I possibly
have believed what I believed yesterday!". There were many many who
believed in a global flood even after 1830. Lyell's book was a strong
challenge to that view, and did change many minds because the diluvialists
were unable to explain in a coherent fashion the data Lyell put forth.
If there was a switch that took
>place in the ?middle to early? part of the 19th century, I sure missed it.
>Geology is from its inception as a science uniformitarianism in outlook.
Not since geology's inception! Steno, arguably the first geologist was a
young-earth creationist. Steno in 1667 argued that the sharks teeth were
relicts of the Flood or Creation see Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of
Fossils, (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1976), p. 50
further,
It is at this point, however, that earlier commentators on the
history of geology often felt constrained to turn regretfully
from praising Steno as the forerunner of modern geology to
apologizing for his accommodation of Earth-history within the
confines of a few thousand years. Yet it is important to
recognize that, in the context of his time, Steno's attempt to
harmonize his observations with scriptural history was no
insincere or forced reconciliation but a natural synthesis of
what he and his contemporaries regarded as two equally valid and
complementary sources of evidence - the Book of God's Word and
the Book of God's Works."~Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of
Fossils, (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1976), p.
68
John Ray was a creationist/diluvialist. he wrote a book entitled, The Wisdom of
God Manifested in the Works of Creation. Ray felt that local flood was
unscriptural and yet unable to see solution to origin and dispersal of Flood
waters. see Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils, (New York:
Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1976), p. 73
The age of the earth was the first thing to go. Geologists by the time of
Hutton held that the earth was older than 6500 years, but they still
believed that there had been a universal flood, but it was restricted to
certain layers, and didn't deposit the entire geologic column. The thing
that Buckland and Sedgewick gave up was a belief in a global flood. They
were the last serious proponents of that view who occupied the highest
levels of geological science.
>Preparadigmic activities have never been successful. Had someone come up
>with a paradigm within the diluvial model, things might well have turned
>out very differently, but who can tell. The paradigm that unified geology
>was uniformitarianism. The explanatory power was heady, and geology became
>firmly rooted in that mindframe.
I doubt that we are in a postparadigmic period yet. And I haven't seen
anything that unifies the geologic data within a diluvial view yet. It is
the explanatory power that is lacking in current diluvialist views.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm