Transition

The 20th Century Transition from Lyell Uniformitarianism to Actualism

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

Flaws in Lyell Uniformitarianism

In the late 18th century, James Hutton introduced the idea that the geologic record generally formed from slow and gradual changes still occurring today and that the Earth had “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.” Hutton's ideas were in sharp opposition to the traditional views of a six 24-hour day Creation Week of about 6,000 years ago and the catastrophism of Noah's Flood, both of which were commonly accepted in Europe at that time. In the early 19th century, Charles Lyell expanded upon Hutton's ideas. Later, the uniformitarianism that bears Lyell’s name became even more committed to slow and constant changes over geologic time and strongly opposed to catastrophism.

Although 19th century Lyell uniformitarianism contained some components that have been retained by 21st century uniformitarianism (actualism) (such as restricting explanations of the geologic record to natural processes and not relying on the supernatural), Lyell uniformitarianism relied on several unrealistic assumptions that have long since been abandoned, including:

1) shunning the idea that regional or global natural catastrophes could significantly affect the geologic record,

2) that the rates of geological or other natural processes (such as erosion and sediment deposition) were constant over time, and

3) that everything in the geologic record is a product of processes that are still acting in modern environments (that is, “the present is always a key to the past”, all depositional environments for ancient sediments have modern analogs and all modern environments have analogs in the geologic record).

Science is not stagnant. Beginning in the 1960s, the above three assumptions were extensively challenged, recognized as unreliable and slowly stripped away from Lyell uniformitarianism to produce modern uniformitarianism (actualism). In particular, the ideas of constant rates for natural processes and the presence of modern analogs for every ancient process were discarded (also see “Actualism (Modern Uniformitarianism) and its Assumptions”). Geologists also recognized that natural catastrophes could extensively impact (literally, in the case of asteroids) the geologic record (see below).

Geologists Don't View the Writings of Lyell as Their Scripture

By pointing out Lyell's numerous errors on uniformitarianism and other geological issues, Reed and Oard (2009a) and Oard (2009a) seem to believe that geologists must defend every word from Lyell just as YECs defend every word of the Old and New Testament writers. Lyell as well as his opponents, like all scientists, got some things right and some things wrong. Lyell was simply wrong to assume that natural processes have constant rates and to oppose biological evolution until late in his life. However, he was right in restricting geological processes to the laws of nature. Louis Agassiz was a catastrophist opponent of Lyell, but he agreed with Lyell that natural law must be used to understand the origin of the geologic record (Gould 1987, p. 126). Georges Cuvier, another catastrophist opponent of Lyell, was right to conclude that the geologic record was inconsistent with a young 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth (Gould 1987, p. 112). Oard and Reed (2009, p. 7) also refer to Cuvier as a “ghost” that haunted mainstream geology in the latter part of the 20th century. In reality, geologists have no reason to be “haunted” or fearful of any of the ideas of Cuvier, Lyell, Darwin, or any other great scientist of the past. Indeed, Gould (1987, p. 112), neocatastrophist Ager (1993) and many other geologists have reintroduced and honored Cuvier's work. Science is strengthened and not “haunted” or harmed whenever modern geologists review the ideas of past scientists. These reviews involve reintroducing forgotten good ideas and correcting and rejecting errors, whether their own or those of past scientists. In contrast, young-Earth creationism and Biblical fundamentalism are being haunted by reality as they continue to lose popular recognition as more and more people learn about the archaeological (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2001), biological, geological (Prothero, 2007) and manuscript evidence (Price, 2003; Price, 2007; Loftus, 2010; Rollston, 2003) that refutes fundamentalist claims about the Bible.

Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 13) correctly point out how 20th century Lyell uniformitarians unfairly rejected J. Harlen Bretz' arguments for the natural catastrophic origins of the channel scablands. Bretz's catastrophic arguments were finally accepted by members of the International Association for Quaternary Research in 1963 (Ager 1993, p. 19). Although many 20th century geologists should be blamed and embarrassed for allowing Lyell uniformitarianism to have such a detrimental influence over geology for so long, YEC Austin (1979, p. 33) admits that there were geologists that continued to oppose the overly rigid doctrines of Lyell uniformitarianism after its introduction in the 1830's right up to its modernization into actualism beginning in the 1960s. Rudwick (2008, p. 393) also correctly concludes:

“However, Lyell's contemporaries - like modern scientists faced with a comparably bold theoretical synthesis - picked and chose from his massive work, adopting his viewpoint on some issues and rejecting it on others.”

While geologists eventually recognized and rejected the flaws of Lyell uniformitarianism, YECs still have their “geology” and views of the Bible back in the 17th century. They needed to be corrected by scientists in the 1980s about the Paluxy “human with dinosaur” footprints and they still must be corrected about countless other errors in geology and geochronology (also here). So, Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 13) and other YECs really have no moral high ground to complain about how scientists were too slow to accept the importance of natural catastrophes in the early to mid-20th century.

Recognition of the Importance of Natural Catastrophes in Understanding the Geologic Record

An important development among 20th century geologists was the recognition that ancient natural catastrophes (such as, asteroid impacts, extensive volcanic eruptions, regional flooding, large hurricanes, and surging glaciers) could have regional and, in some cases (e.g., asteroid impacts and extensive volcanic eruptions), global impacts on ancient life and the geologic record. Ager (1973; 1981) was one of the pioneers that recognized that many features in the geologic record resulted from ancient natural disasters (neocatastrophism) rather than just slow and gradual processes.

The idea that ancient natural catastrophes could affect the geologic record and possibly cause mass extinctions really became popular with scientists after the publication of Alvarez et al. (1980). This article attributed the Cretaceous mass extinction to the global effects of an asteroid impact. The development of neocatastrophic explanations was an important contribution to the transformation of Lyell uniformitarianism into modern uniformitarianism (actualism). Actualism recognizes that both ancient natural catastrophes and slow and gradual processes have contributed to the formation of the geologic record.

Many YECs believe that the discovery of evidence of multiple and usually local or regional natural catastrophes in the geologic record somehow supports the existence of one worldwide Flood or a young Earth. To be exact, a number of YECs attempted to use Ager's neocatastrophism to promote Flood geology (here is an example), which greatly angered Ager. Ager had nothing but contempt for YECs. As discussed in my critiques of Oard (2009a) at this website, young-Earth creationism and its Flood geology are no better at explaining the origin of the geologic record than the other extreme- gradualism under Lyell uniformitarianism. Although YECs might want to believe that the neocatastrophism of actualism is a step closer to their Flood geology doctrines, in reality, it's not. As Strahler (1999, p. 453) points out, the natural catastrophes advocated by modern geologists have nothing to do with Noah's Flood or a Creation Week:

“The real difference in thought between creationists and mainstream evolutionists lie not in the magnitude of natural catastrophes, but in that the latter group considers them to be natural events. Science deals with natural things. Creationism considers catastrophes to be acts of God; as such, they are supernatural acts and cannot be examined by science.”

Since Strahler wrote this paragraph, YECs are giving more lip-service to the supernatural and are moving away from invoking the supernatural (miracles) to explain their Flood deposits (see “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”). Nevertheless, YECs still maintain that the Bible demands that at least some crustal rocks supernaturally formed out of nothing (ex nihilo) in six 24-hour days (Snelling and Woodmorappe, 1996; Reed 2009, p. 211).

Some YECs are under the mistaken belief that actualists would gladly embrace a universal Flood except that they want to avoid the "Truth" of the Bible and its condemnation of their sins. Of course, this attack on the sincerity of geologists is utter nonsense, especially the sincerity of geologists that are old-Earth creationists or Christian theistic evolutionists. Unlike the approaches of Oard (1997; 2009a; 2009b) and other YECs, the numerous gradually formed deposits in the geologic record cannot be ignored or explained away to promote Noah's Flood (as examples, see: “Mr. Oard Fails to Distinguish between Actual Varves and Non-varved Layers in the Green River Formation” and “How Could the Castile Formation have Ever Formed during Noah's Flood?”). Furthermore, the evidence of diverse and multiple natural catastrophes in the record cannot be attributed to one universal Flood. Some of these ancient catastrophes had global effects (e.g., K-T asteroid impact and the Permian basalt eruptions). However, contrary to Reed (2009, p. 212) and Oard (2009a, p. 113), most ancient catastrophes (such as the effects of ancient hurricanes, earthquakes and most volcanic eruptions) only had local or, at most, regional effects on the geologic record. As discussed in my essays on Oard (2009a) and Oard (2009b), many geologic deposits are simply too dry, slow, cold and localized to originate from Noah's Flood or even form on a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth. YECs have simply failed to demonstrate that evidence of mostly local or regional natural catastrophes scattered among geologic deposits from slower and gradual processes had anything to do with Noah's Flood.

YECs want Credit for Neocatastrophism

Since YECs (just like everybody else) desire recognition and respect, it's not surprising that they would attempt to take some credit for the birth of neocatastrophism and the decline of Lyell uniformitarianism. In particular, Reed and Oard (2009b, p. 261) mention that the decline of Lyell uniformitarianism coincided with the publication of the foundational YEC book, The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris (1961), and the public resurgence of young-Earth creationism. Oard and Reed (2009, p. 7) also claim that the neocatastrophists were “decades” behind the YECs in recognizing the weakness of Lyell uniformitarianism and the importance of catastrophes in the formation of the geologic record.

Many books and other literature advocating Flood geology and young-Earth creationism have been published over the centuries. During the first half of the 20th century, George McCready Price was a leading author in advocating Flood geology and young-Earth creationism. Immanuel Velikovsky introduced his own version of catastrophism to the public in 1950 (Palmer 1999, p. 104). Many YECs note, however, that it was only after the publication of Whitcomb and Morris (1961) that Flood geology and young-Earth creationism really developed a large following among American fundamentalist Christians. Although the YEC and Velikovsky literature became popular with certain sectors of the public, they had little or no impact on geology. On this topic and others, too many YECs tend to greatly overestimate their impact on geological research and thinking. YEC Paul Garner (2011, p. 3) concludes:

“Following its publication, reviews of The Genesis Flood appeared in a number of periodicals, although it was mostly ignored by the secular media and the mainstream scientific community.”

The acceptance of natural catastrophes among geologists and other scientists simply arose from field and laboratory research without any evidence of positive input from Flood geology or Velikovskyism (e.g., Ager 1973; Alvarez et al. 1980). The literature from YECs and Velikovsky still are, so full of errors, dogmatic proclamations, and misunderstandings that almost all geologists still view them as crackpots rather than “scientists” that just have “alternative views” of Earth history. Young-Earth creationism simply no longer has the significant support among Western scientists and intellectuals that it enjoyed before the 18th century. According to a 2009 Pew Research Center poll, 97% of 647 polled scientists believe that humans evolved, which includes both secular and theistic evolutionists. Besides YECs, I would expect that the 3% would include old-Earth creationists, undecided individuals, and non-Christian anti-evolutionists. Also see here.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Journal of Creation are the most widely known YEC periodicals, yet they have very little circulation and citations. Because of their blatant dogmatic proclamations and abundant errors, these periodicals are either ignored or not taken seriously by almost all geologists. Even YECs have complained about the low quality and unprofessionalism of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (Whitmore et al., 2007). Because of their inferiority and their emphasis on religion over science, these periodicals are not included in science literature databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science or Georef.

In my opinion, the best paper written by a YEC on the flaws of Lyell uniformitarianism is Austin (1979). If any YEC paper could have had a positive contribution on the changes that occurred on how geologists viewed Lyell uniformitarianism and actualism, this paper should have been it. Austin (1979) is listed in Scopus, Web of Science and Georef. However, as of May 19, 2011, Scopus, Web of Science and Georef indicate that not a single paper from their combined list of over 10,000 science journals has ever cited Austin (1979). Scopus also allows the references of all of its database documents to be searched, including books. I was unable to find any citation of Whitcomb and Morris (1961) before 2009. Now, YECs might speculate that many geologists have read Whitcomb and Morris (1961) and other YEC literature, but that they were too bigoted to cite any of them in their science articles. Of course, such speculation has not been proven. In contrast, considering the widespread errors and groundless dogma in the YEC literature and their lack of circulation, the absence of YEC citations in the science literature is probably due more to neglect and justified contempt than any unjust bigotry. In conclusion, all we can say is that there is simply no evidence that YEC literature helped actualism to replace Lyell uniformitarianism. We also have no evidence that YEC publications had any relevant effect in geologists recognizing the importance of ancient natural catastrophes on the development of the geologic record.

References

Ager, D. 1973. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillian/Wiley, New York, USA, 114pp.

Ager, D. 1981. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 2nd edition, Macmillian/Wiley, Basingstoke, New York, USA, 122pp.

Ager, D. 1993. The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 231pp.

Alvarez, L.W, W. Alvarez, F. Asaro and H.V. Michell. 1980. “Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction, Science, v. 208, pp. 1095-1108.

Austin, S.A. 1979. “Uniformitarianism- A Doctrine that Needs Rethinking”, The Compass, v. 56, n. 2, pp. 29-45.

Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, The Free Press, New York, 385pp.

Garner, P. 2011. “’The Genesis Flood’ 50 Years On”, The Biblical Creation Society, http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Gould, S.J. 1987. Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 222pp.

Loftus, J.W. (editor). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New Jersey, USA, 422pp.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J.

Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. 2009b. “Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?”, chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Palmer, T. 1999. Controversy: Catastrophism and Evolution: The Ongoing Debate, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, USA, 452pp.

Price, R.M. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 389pp.

Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press, Cranford, New Jersey, USA, 279pp.

Prothero, D.R. 2007. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, Columbia University Press, New York, USA, 381pp.

Reed, J.K. 2009. “Fossil Distribution in the Flood,” chapter 12 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 207-215.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009b. “Conclusion”, chapter 16 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 259-261.

Rollston, C.A. 2003. “The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence,” Stone-Campbell Journal, v. 6, pp. 95-115.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds Before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 614pp.

Snelling, A.A. and J. Woodmorappe. 1998. “The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Aug. 3-8, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 705 Washington Dr., Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15229.

Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.

Whitcomb, J.C. and H.M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, USA, 518pp.

Whitmore, J.H., A. Hutchison, R. Garbe, J. Guthrie, R. Moak, P. McDorman, and A. Payne, 2007, “Questions from CRSEF”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 43, n. 4, March, pp. 268-270.