Geophysics Links
Geology
Origin of Modern Geology
Origin of Grand Canyon I
Origin of Grand Canyon II
Niagara Falls Escarpment
Uniformitariansim
Comets & Disasters
Electric Comets
Great Chicago Fire I
Great Chicago Fire II
Great Chicago Fire III
Tunguska Event I
Tunguska Event II
CE Comet Review Links
Meteorology
Electric Waterspouts
Electric Tornadoes
Electric Hurricanes
Craters & Rilles
Meteor Crater
Hole in the Ground
Richat Crater
Richat Crater Revisited I
Richat Crater Revisited II
Chicxulub Crater
Craters & Rilles
The Moon & Rilles I
The Moon & Rilles II
The Moon & Rilles III
Olympus Mons
Olympus Mons Caldera
Rampart Craters
Stickney Crater
Valles Marineris
Valles Marineris Message
Victoria Crater
Victoria Crater Dunes
Miscellaneous
Antarctic Fossil Questions
Electric Earth
Sahara Desertification
Site Section Links
Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition
Christianity Material
Christendom Analyzed
Christendom Challenged
Christendom Condemned
Bible/Canon Issues
Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels of Canon
Philosophy Material
Paradigm Material
Philosophical Issues
Psychological Issues
Theological Issues
Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material
Cosmology Material
Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern
Mythology Material
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Venus-Mars Material
Language-Development
Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Chronology Revision
Miscellaneous Material
Misc Biology Lins
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store
|
What is Uniformitarianism and how did it get here?
by Alex Marton
When Charles Darwin published his now classic On the Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, he was riding the crest
of a long wave of scientific speculation regarding the history of the earth
and its inhabitants... I have called attention to the word scientific
not to demean its value, but to highlight the fact that that was just one
side of the on-going controversy about the Creation and the level of
interest that the Almighty might have in the affairs of men. This last point
was one that preoccupied many in the nineteenth century; in addition to
scientific curiosity and the drive to discover the real nature of things,
the truth of the Biblical story was directly connected to a highly political
issue: the legitimacy of the Monarchy.
Almost thirty years earlier, Charles Lyell had paved the way with the
publication of his Principles of Geology, in three volumes, between
1830 and 1833. Geology was in its infancy, but Lyell and others had labored
diligently to lay the foundations of the new science and, to the extent that
success is the approval of later generations, they succeeded with honors.
In 1807, a small group of amateurs had formed the London Geological
Society. In the words of one of its founders, they were starting "a little
talking geological dinner club." Of the original group of thirteen, four
were doctors, two booksellers, one an ex-minister, two amateur chemists who
were also independently wealthy, and so on. Only one member had training in
geology, but did not pursue it as a livelihood. In fact, an amazing aspect
of the London Geological Society is that none of its founders were
geologists experienced in or prepared to do field work, but gentlemen
inclined to meet for dinner and talk.
Even so, in its second year, the London Geological Society was joined by
two dozen Fellows of the Royal Society. Its growth accelerated so much that
within ten years, its membership was in excess of 400; in 1825, the year of
its incorporation, it was up to more than 630. Though England was going
through a busy period of canal building and mine exploration (so that there
was plenty of digging going on), the number of active geologists who were
members of the London Geological Society was very close to zero. The
amateurs who were members were interested in geology not so much because of
its practical applications or even for the theoretical speculations of a new
science, but because of the religious and political consequences it might
have.
In the 18th century, the winds of democracy from America and the attacks
of thinkers like Locke and Rousseau, among others, questioned the Monarchy
as the natural form of government. Liberalism was moving, and its method was
to go after Biblical Geology (specifically the Flood) in order to disarm the
Monarchists. The social context in which these
political-religious-scientific battles came to a head in England was the
popular restlessness of the early nineteenth century. After defeating
Napoleon, England fell into a severe depression. The army was demobilized,
throwing almost half a million men into unemployment; the overseas market
for British exports dried up; the government's need for war supplies
evaporated. A set of laws (the Corn Laws) passed to protect farmers against
cheap imported grain resulted in prices so high that workers were unable to
buy it. The effects rippled through Britain's farms and industry alike,
creating starving workers and bankrupt businesses.
Incidents of popular unrest led the (monarchist) government to enact laws
curtailing certain rights. Free speech was one of them. There were those who
smelled revolution in the air, but the liberal middle class could still
remember the ravages of the French Revolution. That's not what they wanted.
What they wanted was reform in Parliament, but traditional theological
doctrine stood in the way. Paley's Natural Theology claimed that sovereignty
descended from God to the King; if he was satisfied with it, there was no
need to reform it.
Paley's doctrine was required study in the universities, and was the
received wisdom in society. There was only one way to reform Parliament, and
that was to destroy Paley's Natural Theology - and the only way to do that
was to discredit the catastrophist notions of its religious defenders who
sought to reconcile the geological evidence with the story of Genesis.
Scientists in Britain and on the Continent had been making discoveries in
the geological record that strained the literal interpretation of the
biblical story, while others tried to save it by reinterpreting the words
(six days were really six eras, and so on). Many scientists who were also
religious tried to find solutions acceptable to the churches, to the people
who were increasingly confused, and to themselves as honest individuals
laboring to establish the truth. Others wanted nothing less than to destroy
once and for all the connection between science and religion. And those who
were politically motivated wanted to bury forever the notion of the divine
right of kings. If the scientific evidence denied the truth of the Bible,
then it also denied any connection between God and the Monarchy, thus
freeing Parliament and the people to redefine the political equations.
So science, its methods and its scope, in the formative beginnings, was
very much a creature of the times, unabashedly enlisted in the service of
political causes by those who sought to affect political and social
developments in their own favor. It is in this context that we must view the
formation and growth of the London Geological Society and its vast influence
on the parameters within which geology was to develop into a respectable
science. The society succeeded in recruiting influential members - doctors,
lawyers, members of Parliament, and eventually even geologists. One member,
a young whig lawyer named Charles Lyell, decided to take a novel approach:
in his Principles of Geology, he argued against the catastrophists
by saying that the diluvial theory was, in effect, mythological, and that it
stood in the way of progress in geology. He concentrated on the gradual
effects of erosion and volcanic uplift to rationalize the geological
observations, completely ignoring all evidence of catastrophism. The
liberals were delighted, and they elected him secretary, and later president
of the Geological Society.
Catastrophism was dead, and the principle of Uniformitarianism was
established: geological changes took place slowly, over extremely long
period of time, free of widespread catastrophic changes. The Society grew
powerful: it was able to prevent publication of material favorable to
catastrophism, and to arrange evidence so as to satisfy a uniformitarian
view. Similarly, the political battle was won by the liberals, and the power
flow between the King, the Parliament, and the People changed direction.
It was in this atmosphere that Darwin made the headlines, and the rest is
history. After some early skirmishes, Darwin's "theory of evolution" won the
day - a mechanistic theory of evolution subservient to and dependent upon
geological uniformitarianism: gradual change over eons, with no violent
jumps. Discontinuities in the fossil record, evidence of mass extinctions -
all this was swept under the carpet. The new picture was one of long-term
stability and imperceptible change. There was no evidence of and, indeed, no
need for a divine presence.
It is unfortunate that these crusty notions have shaped the present
dilemma of geology. The political issues were settled long ago, but geology
is still committed to a paradigm established primarily as part of a
political front that is no longer relevant. It is also unfortunate that
catastrophism is linked to biblical fundamentalism because that association
has inhibited the evolution of catastrophism as a legitimate avenue of
scientific inquiry, without reference to religion or politics. What has
happened in geology, and is happening in evolutionary biology, is that the
44 classic" principles are still being taught and accepted, but the mounting
body of evidence for events that don't fit the theory is swelling up from
the museum basements onto the main floors, where they cannot be ignored
anymore.
Political Geology? Is this really how we got here from there
intellectually? Yes. And catastrophism is still viewed as an enemy, rather
than as a potential partner. This will change. In addition, catastrophism
doesn't have to represent a religious viewpoint: Religion may have needed,
or may still need catastrophes, but catastrophism doesn't Religion. Where
there is evidence of catastrophe, that information should be described and
studied, as the Scientific Method counsels us to do. If overwhelming
evidence argues in favor of new theories, so be it. If overwhelming evidence
argues in favor of catastrophic occurrences within the memory of humankind,
well, there is a test for openmindedness. Those who defend a
posture established one hundred and fifty years ago against today's evidence
are only ironic reminders of the victims of Uniformitarianism itself.
The arguments against the occurrence of global catastrophe as the source
of ancient stories about such events have carried the day, at least in part,
because of the historical influences on our interpretation of knowledge.
After generations of formal education, the bedrock status of this view- that
ancient testimony of world disaster is not to be taken literally - is so
firmly engrained in the sciences that the alternate possibility is almost
completely ignored.
Yet we are faced with an ancient history in which the principal memories
of the race seem to involve the occurrence of world -shattering, natural
disaster. This is the real issue at hand here. How can we reconcile the
traditional scientific conception of uniformitarian evolution with the
obsession of the ancient mind that celestial catastrophe was the agent of
change? |