Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Four:
Dating Methods, Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Focus
on Critical Evidence:
Dating Methods, Introduction and Perceptions
Having
investigated the relationship of distant starlight, redshift,
and the age of the universe and having found that the evidence
does not indicate the earth is billions of years old, only
one issue remains concerning the age of the universe. That
issue surrounds the other evidence related to time, the geologic
dating methods. Geologic dating methods have to do with dating
the earth’s rocks, rock layers, minerals, fossils and
other landform features. The methods can be divided into 2
broad categories known as “relative dating” and
“absolute dating.”
Perhaps
the most crucial geologic feature for dating the earth is
the fact that rock formations are distributed in layers. Relative
dating methods deal directly with the order in which rock
layers are found. The other main category of geologic dating
is absolute dating. Absolute dating, also commonly called
radiometric dating, is the dating of items through radioactive
isotopes.
Through
these methods, evolutionary scientists assert that the earth’s
age has been determined to be about 4-5 billion years old.
“Dating
Methods, I INTRODUCTION – Dating
Methods, in earth science, methods used to date the age of
rocks and minerals. By applying this information, geologists
are able to decipher the 4.6-billion-year history of the earth.”
– "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geologic
sciences, Study of surface features and processes, Earth history,
Historical geology and stratigraphy – Radiometric
dating also helped geochronologists discover the vast span
of geologic time. The radiometric dating of meteorites revealed
that the Earth, like
other bodies of the solar system, is about 4,600,000,000 years
old and that the oldest rocks so far discovered formed roughly
3,800,000,000 years ago.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth
sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments,
Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – By determining
the amount of the parent and daughter isotopes present in
a sample and by knowing their rate of radioactive decay (each
radioisotope has its own decay constant), the isotopic age
of the sample can be calculated…Also by extrapolating backward in time to a situation when there
was no lead that had been produced by
radiogenic processes, a figure of about 4,600,000,000 years
is obtained for the minimum age of the Earth.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
It
is no surprise that this age and these dating methods form
the basis for the rejection of creation theory by many people.
Creation theory asserts an age that is only 6,000 to 10,000
years for the earth, a figure that these methods indicate
is much too young. Consequently, this issue creates a general
impression that creationists are either ignorant of the facts,
unreasonable, have a faith that is unconcerned with facts,
or are simply in plain, old-fashioned denial. For this reason,
it is important to clearly address such perceptions at the
very beginning of this segment. Perception
Figures 1-8 depict some common ways that people might
conceive of the way that calculating ages and proving evolutionary
time work.
(See
Perception Figures 1-8.)
With
these perceptions, many people ask, “How can creationists
argue with this?” For example, if the geologic column
and all its fossils are arranged after a machine or computer
scans them and tells us their exact age, how can anyone argue
with that?
However,
despite their persistent and pervasive nature, none of these
perceptions are true. This is not how dating methods work
and this is not how the evolutionary time scale is constructed.
Here are some simple facts about how dating processes actually
work.
(See
Dating Facts Figure 1.)
Throughout
this section, we will see these facts stated in secular and
evolutionary sources. In reality, dating procedure actually
works in the much more complicated, much more problematic,
and far less certain manner as depicted in Dating
Figures 1-13.
(See
Dating Procedures Figures 1-13.)
Consequently,
while common perception might be that creationists are attempting
to deny that the sky is blue or the grass is green, the reality
is that the dating processes upon which the evolutionary timescale
is based are simply not a matter of observable fact or evidence.
They are constructs derived from stacking together a number
of mere assumptions. And as we will see, these processes are
not only flawed individually but, in order to work, they require
circular reasoning between relative dating methods, absolute
dating methods, and evolutionary theory itself.
The
point of addressing these common perceptions here, at the
very beginning of this segment, is because it is these perceptions
that are at the heart of the debate concerning the amount
of time that has passed on earth. When it comes to the age
of the earth, are creationists simply in denial of inarguable,
concrete evidence? Or, is the idea of an earth that is billions
of years old based merely empty equations that presuppose
evolution and use assumed and adjustable numbers rather than
real, objective numbers?
Answering
these questions and documenting the facts summarily presented
in the illustrations above will be the focus throughout the
rest of this section. We will start by covering the most basic
foundations of each theory’s view of geologic history.
And then, with that essential backdrop in mind, we will proceed
to analyze and discuss the details of how relative dating
and absolute dating (radiometric dating) work.
Focus
on Critical Evidence: Basic Views of Geology
When
it comes to the issue of just how long the earth has been
around, one of the critical points is the need to explain
how the earth’s physical features formed. Did these
features take a long time to form? Or did they form quickly
and within a 6,000 to 10,000 year period? If geologic features
form from slow processes and take a long time to form, then
the earth might very well be millions or billions of years
old. If geologic features form from fast-acting process that
do not require more than days, weeks, months or several years,
then the earth might very well be quite young. There are 2
views concerning the age of the earth and whether or not geologic
features form quickly or slowly. They are called uniformitarianism
and catastrophism. And, as we will see, it is these 2 views
that form the backbone for all of geologic dating. Consequently,
we need to understand the basic points of each of these 2
basic geologic views and we need to determine the extent to
which they are scientifically valid in terms of observation.
We’ll start with the defining points of each view.
Uniformitarianism
is the current, underlying theory of geology and evolutionary
science. This view asserts that all of the geologic features
of the earth were formed slowly by the same normative processes
that occur today and everyday. This principle is the backbone
of relative dating, and due to the circular reasoning between
relative and radiometric dating, it is also the foundation
for radioactive dating as well. The quotes below establish
5 basic facts about uniformitarianism. First, that uniformitarianism
is a “fundamental” concept to modern geology.
Second, that uniformitarianism is defined by the idea that
geologic features formed from slow processes that require
long ages. Third, that uniformitarianism provides the basis
for calculating “old” ages of the earth. Fourth,
that uniformitarianism contrasts to “biblical explanations”
for the earth’s features, such as the biblical flood.
And fifth, uniformitarianism was introduced in 1875 by James
Hutton and became popularly accepted in the 1800’s through
the efforts of Sir Charles Lyell.
“Lyell,
Sir Charles –
(1797-1875) was a British geologist whose writings established uniformitarianism
as the basis of modern geology. Uniformitarianism is the theory
that the gradual processes shaping the earth today, such as
erosion, also formed the earth's features in the past.
James Hutton, a
Scottish geologist, had
introduced this theory in 1785. In Lyell's day, however,
most scientists still believed the earth had been shaped by
rare and sudden events that were unique to the past. Lyell
convincingly set forth the theory of uniformitarianism in
his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830-1833). He stated that most of the earth's structural features could be explained
as the result of constantly occurring processes over millions
of years. Lyell supported his theory by analyzing the long-term effect of observable events, such as the erosion of land by rivers.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English
and Humanities, University
of Wisconsin,
Parkside.
“Uniformitarianism
– in geology,
the doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner
and with essentially the same intensity as at present
are sufficient to account
for all geologic change. Uniformitarianism posits that natural
agents now at work
on and within the Earth have
operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods
of time. When William Whewell, a University
of Cambridge
scholar, introduced the term in 1832…This principle
is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole
development of the science of geology.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology,
The rock dispute – In
1795, in a book called Theory
of the Earth, Hutton
presented what would later be called the principle of uniformitarianism.
He claimed that Earth was gradually changing in a variety
of ways and would continue to change in the same ways…Hutton
died in 1797, before other scientists accepted his ideas.
But in 1802, John
Playfair, a Scottish mathematician, expanded
on Hutton's work in the book Illustrations
of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth. This book presented Hutton's ideas clearly and with illustrations. It
became a leading guide to the development of the field of
geology.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria
Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn
Mawr College.
“Geochronology,
The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition
of the geologic cycle –
Hutton's formulation of the principle of uniformitarianism,
which holds that Earth processes occurring today had their
counterparts in the ancient past, while not the first
time that this general concept was articulated, was probably the most important geologic concept
developed out of rational scientific thought of the 18th century.
The publication of Hutton's two-volume Theory
of the Earth in 1795 firmly
established him as one of the founders of modern geologic
thought.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
“Geochronology,
Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Hutton's
words were not lost on the entire scientific community. Charles
Lyell, another Scottish geologist, was a principal proponent
of Hutton's approach, emphasizing gradual change by means
of known geologic processes. In his own observations on
rock and faunal successions, Lyell was able to demonstrate
the validity of Hutton's
doctrine of uniformitarianism and its importance as one of
the fundamental philosophies of the geologic sciences…This,
along with the increased recognition of the utility of fossils
in interpreting rock successions, made it possible to begin
addressing the question of the meaning of time in Earth history.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology,
II GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, C Uniformitarianism
– Uniformitarianism, or actualism, helps geologists use their knowledge of
modern processes and events to reconstruct the past.”
– "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth –
From the time of Hutton's refinement of uniformitarianism, the principle
found wide application in various attempts to calculate the
age of the Earth. As previously noted, fundamental
to the principle was the premise that various Earth processes
of the past operated in much the same way as those processes
operate today. The corollary to this was that the rates of
the various ancient processes could be considered the same
as those of the present day. Therefore, it should be possible to calculate the age of the Earth on
the basis of the accumulated record of some process that
has occurred at this determinable rate since the Creation.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton,
James – Hutton devoted his time to extensive scientific
reading and traveled widely to inspect rocks and observe the
actions of natural processes. His
chief contribution to scientific knowledge, the uniformitarian
principle, was put forward in his papers presented to
the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785…Hutton's view as stated in these papers
was that the world's
geologic phenomena can be explained in terms of observable
processes, and that those processes now at work on and within
the Earth have operated with general uniformity over immensely
long periods of time. These two papers marked a turning point for geology; from that time
on, geology became a science founded upon the principle of
uniformitarianism…Hutton claimed that the totality of
these geologic processes could fully explain the current landforms
all over the world, and no biblical explanations were necessary
in this regard. Finally, he stated that the processes
of erosion, deposition, sedimentation, and upthrusting were
cyclical and must have been repeated many times in the Earth's
history. Given the
enormous spans of time taken by such cycles, Hutton asserted
that the age of the Earth must be inconceivably great.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton,
James – Hutton, James (1726-1797), British geologist,
who originated the modern theory of the gradual
evolution of the earth's crust…Hutton formulated the uniformitarian theory of geology, which suggested
that such processes as sedimentation, volcanism, and erosion
caused changes in the surface of the earth and had been operating
in the same manner and at the same rate over a very long period
of time. Thus, he saw the earth as being much older than had
been previously thought; this aroused strong opposition
from those who believed in James Ussher's biblical chronology
published in 1650, which stated that the world was created
in 4004 BC (BCE). Hutton summarized his theories in Theory
of the Earth (2 volumes, 1795).” – "Hutton,
James," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Continental
landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th
and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The
Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its
present form through the past occurrence of processes still
in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism...Uniformitarianism
also became the working principle for a growing number of
geologic historians, notably William Smith and Sir Charles
Lyell, in the 19th century. This was necessary as Lyell
argued increasingly that geologic change was incremental and
gradual. He needed a longer time scale if this approach was
to work, and geologic historians were finding it for him.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton,
James – Hutton, James (1726-1797), British geologist,
who originated the modern theory of the gradual
evolution of the earth's crust…Hutton formulated the uniformitarian theory of geology, which suggested
that such processes as sedimentation, volcanism, and erosion
caused changes in the surface of the earth and had been operating
in the same manner and at the same rate over a very long period
of time. Thus, he saw the earth as being much older than had
been previously thought; this aroused strong opposition
from those who believed in James Ussher's biblical chronology
published in 1650, which stated that the world was created
in 4004 BC (BCE). Hutton summarized his theories in Theory
of the Earth (2 volumes, 1795).” – "Hutton,
James," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Lyell,
Sir Charles – (1797-1875), Scottish geologist, whose writings strongly influenced the development of modern geology…Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century
Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory
of uniformitarianism. This theory says that the natural processes
that change the earth in the present have operated in the
past at the same gradual rate.” – "Lyell,
Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. ©
1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Hutton,
James – (1726-1797), a
Scottish philosopher and chemist, was a pioneer in the field
of geology. His main contributions included the ideas that
Earth was immensely old and that its features were constantly
and gradually changing. He argued that many such changes
were caused by heat within Earth. Hutton discussed this geological
change in his book Theory
of the Earth (1795). His
theory that geological forces are the same now as in the past
became known as uniformitarianism… According to Hutton,
rocks were constantly breaking down into soil. The soil was
washed off the continents and carried into the sea by rain
and rivers. Then, heat from under Earth's surface consolidated
the soil into new layers of rock and eventually elevated the
rock above sea level. This process led to the creation of
new continents, which replaced those that had been worn away.
Many thinkers of Hutton's day accepted Biblical evidence
that Earth was about
6,000 years old. Hutton thought that this figure was much
too low.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis
R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities,
University
of Wisconsin,
Parkside.
“Archaeology,
History, Beginnings – By
the early 1800's, geologists had determined that rock formation
resulted from extremely slow processes, such as erosion and
volcanic activity. This view, known as uniformitarianism,
led most scholars to believe that the earth was much older
than previously thought.” – Worldbook, Contributor:
Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University
of Texas, Austin.
It
is important to note that although the uniformitarian principle
was the first step that “led most scholars to believe
that the earth was much older than previously thought,”
this ideology emerged in the 1800’s, long before radiometric
dating was developed.
“Dating
Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS
– With the methods then available, 19th-century
geologists could only construct a relative time scale.
Thus, the actual age of the earth and the
duration, in millions of years, of
the units of the time scale remained unknown until the
dawn of the 20th century.
After radioactivity was discovered,
radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these
new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale
of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.”
– "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Earth
sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments,
Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – Versions
of the modern mass spectrometer were invented in the early
1920s and 1930s, and during World War II the device was
improved substantially to help in the development of the atomic
bomb. Soon after the
war, Harold C. Urey and G.J. Wasserburg applied the mass spectrometer
to the study of geochronology.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth
sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments,
Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – In
1905, shortly after the discovery of radioactivity, the American chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead is one
of the disintegration products of uranium, in which case the
older a uranium-bearing mineral the greater should be its
proportional part of lead. Analyzing specimens whose relative
geologic ages were known, Boltwood found that the ratio of
lead to uranium did indeed increase with age. After estimating the rate of this radioactive
change he calculated that the absolute ages of his specimens
ranged from 410,000,000 to 2,200,000,000 years. Though
his figures were too high by about 20 percent, their order
of magnitude was enough to dispose of the short scale of geologic
time proposed by Lord Kelvin.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Understanding
that the long ages of evolutionary time were developed long
before radiometric dating was even invented is an important
point. This demonstrates that the evolutionary timescale and
history of the earth simply was not developed from radiometric
dating.
The
quotes below list examples of the kinds of slow, everyday
processes that uniformitarianism asserts are responsible for
geologic features, including such processes as volcanism,
sedimentation, erosion, weathering, running water, moving
ice, and gravity.
“Geochronology,
The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition
of the geologic cycle –Ample evidence from Hutton's
Scotland provided the key to unraveling the often thought
but still rarely stated premise
that events occurring today at the Earth's surface—namely
erosion, transportation and deposition of sediments, and volcanism—seem
to have their counterparts preserved in the rocks. The
rocks of the Scottish coast and the area around Edinburgh
proved the catalyst for his
argument that the Earth is indeed a dynamic, ever-changing
system, subject to a sequence of recurrent cycles of erosion
and deposition and of subsidence and uplift. Hutton's formulation
of the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that Earth
processes occurring today had their counterparts in the ancient
past, while not the first time that this general concept
was articulated, was probably the most important geologic
concept developed out of rational scientific thought of the
18th century.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
“Continental
landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th
and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The
Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its
present form through the past occurrence of processes still
in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism…In
this area of study, research emphasis is placed on observing
what can be accomplished
by a contemporary geologic agency such as running water. Later,
the role of moving ice, gravity, and wind in the molding of
valleys and hillslopes came to be appreciated by study of
these phenomena.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Uniformitarianism
– The idea that
the laws that govern geologic processes have not changed during
the history of the Earth were articulated by the 18th-century
Scottish geologist James Hutton, who in 1785 presented his
ideas—later published in two volumes as Theory of the Earth (1795)—at meetings
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In this work Hutton showed that the Earth had along history and that
this history could be interpreted in terms of processes observed
at the present, of which he gave examples. He showed,
for instance, how soils were formed by the weathering of rocks
and how layers of sediment accumulated…the effect of
his ideas on the learned world can be compared only with the
earlier revolution in thought brought about by Nicolaus Copernicus,
Johannes Kepler, and Galileo when they displaced the concept
of a universe centred on the Earth with the concept of a solar
system centred on the Sun.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Also
of particular interest is the fact that the last quote describes
Hutton’s principle of uniformitarian as “comparable”
to the “revolution in thought” brought about by
Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo. Having
covered these topics in our last segment, we know what this
statement is referring to. The “Copernican Revolution”
and the “Copernican Principle” are popularly regarded
among evolutionists who associate the historic events surrounding
men like Copernicus with steps away from the biblical view
of history and the world in which the earth was specially
created by an intelligent, supernatural being only several
thousand years ago. Here Hutton is being given credit for
furthering the removal of the biblical worldview.
As
we return to the subject of uniformitarianism, it is important
to note that in the uniformitarian view, fossils are formed
by the gradual laying down of rock layers by these normal,
slow processes. Sir Charles Lyell operated on Hutton’s
notion that earth’s soil and rock layers were formed
by such normal, slow processes.
“Uniformitarianism
– The idea that
the laws that govern geologic processes have not changed during
the history of the Earth were articulated by the 18th-century
Scottish geologist James Hutton, who in 1785 presented his
ideas—later published in two volumes as Theory of the Earth (1795)—at meetings
of the Royal Society of Edinburgh…He showed, for instance,
how soils were formed
by the weathering of rocks and how layers of sediment accumulated…”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Since
those rock layers were understood to take long ages to form,
Lyell then supposed the following. First, that the fossils
in the layers must have been buried as those layers formed.
And second, that the organisms in the fossil record must themselves
date from very long ages ago in the past.
“Lyell,
Sir Charles – (1797-1875)
Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century
Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory
of uniformitarianism…Lyell
is also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the
study of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a
method for classifying strata, or layers, by studying ancient
marine beds in western Europe. Lyell observed that the marine
beds closest to the surface, therefore the most recent,
contained many species of shell-bearing mollusks that still
live in today's seas. On
the other hand, deeper, older strata contained fewer and fewer
fossils of living species. Lyell divided the rocks of this period into
three epochs, based on decreasing percentages of modern
species. The names he proposed-Eocene, Miocene, and
Pliocene-are still used today.” – "Lyell,
Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. ©
1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Consequently,
we can see that uniformitarianism is foundational to the process
of dating fossils according to the rock layers they are found
in. As indicated by the quote above, this process is called
stratigraphy. We will cover more on stratigraphy later on.
Also notice that Lyell’s divisions of time into the
Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene epochs are “still used
today.” So, once again, we can see that the basic evolutionary
timescale and history were already developed without radiometric
dating, long before radiometric dating was even invented.
In
contrast to uniformitarianism is catastrophism. The following
quotes will establish the following defining points concerning
catastrophism. First, as indicated by the previous reference
to Copernicus in one of the quotes above, catastrophism was
the established geological view before the arrival of uniformitarianism.
Then, like the views of Copernicus, uniformitarianism effectively
replaced catastrophism as the dominant view in geology. Second,
catastrophism is defined as the view that geologic features
were formed rapidly by catastrophic events, particularly the
flood recorded in the book of Genesis. Thus, in this view,
the earth was formed only several thousand years ago by a
supernatural, intelligent being.
“Lyell,
Sir Charles –
was a British geologist whose writings established
uniformitarianism as the basis of modern geology…In
Lyell's day, however, most scientists still believed the earth
had been shaped by rare and sudden events that were unique
to the past.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis
R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities,
University
of Wisconsin,
Parkside.
“Hutton,
James – Hutton devoted his time to extensive scientific
reading and traveled widely to inspect rocks and observe the
actions of natural processes. His chief contribution to scientific knowledge,
the uniformitarian principle, was put forward in his papers
presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785…Hutton's
ideas were astonishing when viewed in the context of the opinion
of his day. By the late 18th century, much knowledge
had been gained about rocks, strata, and fossils, but
none of this wealth of data had been synthesized into a
workable general theory of geology. Such
a task was seriously impeded by the still-accepted belief
that the Earth had been created only about 6,000 years ago,
according to the narrative in the biblical book of Genesis.
The world's sedimentary rocks were believed by some geologists
to have been formed when immense quantities of minerals precipitated
out of the waters of the biblical flood. Erosional processes
had long been recognized, but there was no equivalent explanation
for the creation of land surfaces, as opposed to their
destruction by erosion.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Uniformitarianism
– Uniformitarianism
posits that natural agents now at work on and within the
Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely
long periods of time. When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832, the prevailing view (called catastrophism)
was that the Earth had originated through supernatural means
and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such
as the biblical Flood.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geochronology,
The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition
of the geologic cycle –
In the late 1780s the Scottish scientist James Hutton launched
an attack on much of the geologic dogma that had its basis
in either Werner's Neptunist approach or its corollary
that the prevailing
configuration of the Earth's surface is largely the result
of past catastrophic events which have no modern counterparts…Hutton took issue with the catastrophist
and Neptunist approach to interpreting rock histories and
instead used deductive reasoning to explain what he saw. By
Hutton's account, the Earth could not be viewed as a simple,
static world not currently undergoing change.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Lyell,
Sir Charles – Uniformitarianism
contradicted the theory of catastrophism, which was popular
among scientists of Lyell's time. Catastrophism
claimed that only major catastrophes could change the basic
formation of the earth, and that the earth was only about
6000 years old. Most scientists believed that catastrophism
was consistent with the Bible's account of the earth's creation.”
– "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta®
Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
“Creationism,
V RECENT TRENDS – Flood
geology gained wider acceptance after the publication
of The Genesis Flood (1961), jointly authored
by conservative biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and
hydraulic engineer Henry M. Morris. This immensely influential
book promoted Price's views as fundamentalist orthodoxy, and
prompted the formation in 1963 of the Creation Research Society.
The society is dedicated to the promotion of what has come
to be known as young-earth creationism (by contrast with the
old-earth creationism associated with the Day-Age and Gap
theories). The most distinctive feature of young-earth
creationism is its reliance on catastrophism, the doctrine
that large-scale changes in the earth's crust are to be explained
by violent, unrepeatable geologic events, such as the biblical
flood.” – "Creationism," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
“Hutton,
James – Many
thinkers of Hutton's day accepted Biblical evidence that Earth
was about 6,000 years old. Hutton thought that this figure
was much too low. Most theorists also believed that only rare disasters, such as earthquakes,
could change Earth's appearance.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English
and Humanities, University
of Wisconsin,
Parkside.
Within
catastrophism, examples of geologic feature formation from
catastrophic events include not only the flood recorded in
the Bible, but also volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts,
and hurricanes, etc. All such catastrophic events fit into
catastrophism because of their ability to form major geologic
features very rapidly rather than requiring long ages of slow
processes.
“Continental
landform, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries,
Catastrophism – Asteroid
impacts, Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions, hurricanes, floods,
and tectonic erosion of mountain systems all occur, may be
catastrophic, and can create and destroy landforms. Yet,
not all change is catastrophic.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
But
perhaps most importantly, catastrophism asserts that fossils
are laid down quickly as rock layers are formed by catastrophe,
and that the majority of earth’s fossils were formed
in this way particularly by the flood recorded in Genesis.
“Continental
landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th
and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – doctrine
that explains the differences in fossil forms encountered
in successive stratigraphic levels as being the product of
repeated cataclysmic occurrences and repeated new creations.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Darwin,
Charles Robert, II VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE – In his geological observations, Darwin
was most impressed with the effect that natural forces had
on shaping the earth's surface. At the time, most geologists
adhered to the so-called catastrophist theory that the
earth had experienced a succession of creations of animal
and plant life, and
that each creation had been destroyed by a sudden catastrophe,
such as an upheaval or convulsion of the earth's surface
(see Geology: History of Geological Thought: 18th and 19th
Centuries). According to this theory, the most recent catastrophe, Noah's flood,
wiped away all life except those forms taken into the ark.
The rest were visible only in the form of fossils. In the
view of the catastrophists, species were individually created
and immutable, that is, unchangeable for all time. The
catastrophist viewpoint (but not the immutability of species)
was challenged by the English geologist Sir Charles Lyell in his
three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830-33). Lyell maintained that the earth's surface is undergoing constant change,
the result of natural forces operating uniformly over long
periods.” – "Darwin, Charles Robert,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Hutton,
James – By
the late 18th century, much knowledge had been gained about
rocks, strata, and fossils, but none of this wealth of
data had been synthesized into a workable general theory of geology.
Such a task was seriously
impeded by the still-accepted belief that the Earth had been
created only about 6,000 years ago, according to the narrative
in the biblical book of Genesis. The world's sedimentary rocks
were believed by some geologists to have been formed when
immense quantities of minerals precipitated out of the waters
of the biblical flood.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Here
we arrive at the need to clarify a minor distinction. The
idea of the rock formation occurring as rock layers were laid
down by water is also present in the related but distinct
Neptunist theory, which was also prominent before the age
of uniformitarianism. Neptunism is named after the god of
the sea in Roman mythology.
“Geology,
The rock dispute – Theorists
who based their ideas on the notion that all
rocks were formed from a global ocean were called Neptunists-after
Neptune, the Roman god of the sea.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology,
Bryn Mawr
College.
There
are 2 defining points of Neptunism that highlights its distinction
from catastrophism. First Neptunism focuses solely on the
ocean as the mechanism for rock formation whereas catastrophism
can assign an equal role to other events such as volcanic
eruptions, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, etc.
“Earth
sciences, The 16th-18th centuries, Geologic sciences, Earth
history according to Werner and James Hutton – The
two major theories of the 18th century were the Neptunian
and the Plutonian. The Neptunists, led by Werner and his students, maintained that the
Earth was originally covered by a turbid ocean. The first sediments deposited over the irregular floor of this universal
ocean formed the granite and other crystalline rocks. Then
as the ocean began to subside, "Stratified" rocks
were laid down in succession.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Second,
catastrophism is defined by its emphasis on mechanisms that
rapidly produce geologic features. Neptunism’s focus
on the ocean as the mechanism for geologic features does not
require rapid action but can allow for slower formation in
a longer timescale. Thus, while Neptunism and catastrophism
have some overlap, they are not one and the same.
With
the basic definitions of uniformitarianism and catastrophism
complete, we are ready to discuss some critical issues concerning
those points, particularly concerning the criteria of science.
In short, uniformitarianism is an un-provable assumption.
Because it involves excessively long ages of time, much longer
than any human lifespan, the formation of geologic features
by the slow, gradual, everyday processes of uniformitarianism
is simply beyond observation. No one has ever observed geologic
features being formed over long ages of time by such slow
processes. Instead, we can simply see existing features being
affected only in a minor way by such processes. Consequently,
uniformitarianism cannot be tested or confirmed observationally.
When speaking of geologic processes, such as weathering and
the accumulation of sedimentary rock layers, Britannica Encyclopedia
admits to the fact that “it is not at all certain on
a priori grounds whether such rates are representative of
the past.” In other words, uniformitarianism is an uncertain
assumption.
“Geochronology,
Nonradiometric dating – In
addition to radioactive decay, many other processes have been
investigated for their potential usefulness in absolute dating.
Unfortunately, they all occur at rates that lack the universal
consistency of radioactive decay. Sometimes human observation
can be maintained long enough to measure present rates of
change, but it is not at all certain on a priori grounds whether
such rates are representative of the past…Nonradioactive
absolute chronometers may conveniently be classified in
terms of the broad areas in which changes occur—namely,
geologic and biological
processes, which will be treated here… Geologic processes as absolute chronometers,
Weathering processes – During the first third of
the 20th century, several presently obsolete weathering
chronometers were explored…Accumulational
processes – The fossiliferous part of the geologic column
includes perhaps 122,000 metres of sedimentary rock if maximum
thicknesses are selected from throughout the world. During
the late 1800s, attempts were made to estimate the time over
which it formed by assuming an average rate of sedimentation.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Similarly,
in a debate with creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, evolutionary
biologists Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University in
Detroit, Michigan likewise admits that uniformitarian principles
“cannot be deduced or proven to be true,” are
“simply taken to be true by assumption and supposition,”
and that evolutionists “can’t really defend these
assumptions.” And, Dr. Moore goes on to state that the
first geological views asserting that the earth were developed
in the 18th and 19th century (by such men as Lyell and Hutton)
but were “essentially” the result of these indefensible,
un-deducible, unproven and un-provable assumptions and suppositions.
Right in line with what we saw concerning evolutionary cosmological
models, all of which were derived from philosophical preference
not observations, here we also see Dr. Moore admit that the
same is true concerning uniformitarianism. It is a philosophical
preference for an old earth.
“What
I see as the foundation,
the key to understanding this conflict, lies at the various
deepest levels in the philosophies of science and religion.
That is, in the metaphysics of the contrasting philosophical
systems. So, what I’m going to say here for the
next few minutes is going to sound like philosophy of science
101…I also point out that I use the word metaphysics…as that area of philosophy that deals
with first principles, with those things that cannot be deduced
or proven to be true. We simply take them to be true by assumption
and supposition. We might say, for
example, let’s suppose that the geological forces of
erosion, volcanism, glaciation, etc., etc. that we see operating
today have always worked in the same way. What could we
learn from this? What would this lead to as a set of inferences
about the earth’s history that may seem sensible. We
can’t really defend these assumptions…We
can’t prove it to be true. We can simply make it
a part of our philosophical system and see how successful
that system is in leading us to new discoveries. This
is essentially what geologists did in the late 18th and 19th
century. And this led to the very first inkling that the earth
must be a pretty old place. At the base of science, I
think, is a very small and clear set of first principles,
the metaphysics of science. And that leads to the so-called
scientific method.” – “The
History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate:
Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne
State University
in Detroit, Michigan,
Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola,
FL, www.drdino.com,
Windows Media Video, 29 minutes, 30 seconds
The
reason for the philosophical preference for an old earth is
simple. Like the counterpart philosophical preferences in
cosmology, long ages of time remove special attention to humankind,
special creation, and teleology – all of which are inherent
to a young earth. And long ages of time are also necessary
for biological evolution to occur. So, uniformitarianism,
and modern geology which uses this principle as a foundation,
are based upon an un-provable, philosophical desire to have
the long ages of time necessary for evolution. As we saw from
Sir Charles Lyell, even in their origination, uniformitarianism
concepts were constructed in conjunction with the idea that
organisms took long ages to reach their present form.
“Lyell,
Sir Charles – Building on the pioneering work of
the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell
developed the theory of uniformitarianism… Uniformitarianism contradicted the theory of catastrophism, which
was popular among scientists of Lyell's time. Catastrophism claimed that only major catastrophes could change
the basic formation of the earth, and that
the earth was only about 6000 years old…Lyell is
also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study
of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a method
for classifying strata, or layers, by studying ancient marine
beds in western Europe.
Lyell observed that the marine beds closest to the surface,
therefore the most recent, contained
many species of shell-bearing mollusks that still live in
today's seas. On the other hand, deeper, older strata contained
fewer and fewer fossils of living species. Lyell divided the
rocks of this period into three epochs, based on decreasing
percentages of modern species. The names he proposed-Eocene,
Miocene, and Pliocene-are still used today.” –
"Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Another
quote that we saw earlier concerning Lyell was even more specific,
stating that “he needed a longer time scale” if
his view that “geologic change was incremental and gradual…was
to work.”
“Continental
landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th
and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The
Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its
present form through the past occurrence of processes still
in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism...Uniformitarianism
also became the working principle for a growing number of
geologic historians, notably William Smith and Sir Charles
Lyell, in the 19th century. This was necessary as Lyell
argued increasingly that geologic change was incremental and
gradual. He needed a longer time scale if this approach was
to work, and geologic historians were finding it for him.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Clearly,
both in terms of how it originated historically and even present
practice, uniformitarianism begins simply with the desire
for the earth to be very, very old.
Conversely,
while the formation of geologic features by uniformitarianism
remains an indefensible, un-proven, un-provable, un-deducible,
and un-observable assumption based upon mere philosophical
preference, catastrophism is the only view that is actually
observable. In fact, it has been observed. Mount
St. Helens provides an excellent example of this.
Such examples in which rapid, large-scale geologic feature
formation has been directly observed in the last half of the
twentieth century will be included in the last section of
this article series, a closing list of all the evidences.
Consequently,
we have one view, uniformitarianism, which is an unobserved,
unobservable, un-provable philosophical preference competing
with another view, catastrophism, which is observable, has
been observed, and therefore is actual empirical science,
not just a mere preferencial assumption. So, the two views
are not equal here. Catastrophism is clearly the more scientific
because it is based upon observation rather than presupposition.
In
fact, there is so much direct, observational evidence for
catastrophism that the problems with uniformitarianism do
not stop at its un-provable, merely philosophical nature.
Not only is uniformitarianism an assumption, but due to the
amount of evidence for the role of catastrophes in major feature
formation, as a broad view, uniformitarianism has had to contradict
its own base assumption.
Modern
geologic science and modern uniformitarianism which serves
as the foundation principle of modern geology acknowledges
that catastrophe does form major geologic features. Catastrophe
is acknowledged as having a place within uniformitarian theory.
This
can be seen in contrast to Sir Charles Lyell. Lyell rejected
any significant role for catastrophes at any point in history.
Instead he argued that violent geologic events only occur
at the rate and significance that they do at present, never
at a greater or more significant rate than the present. Notice
the second to last sentence of the quote below specifically
states that, according to Lyell, the surface features of the
Earth are not altered by even “occasional cataclysmic
phenomena” but are entirely the product of small, gradual
changes.
“Geochronology,
Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Lyell, however, imposed some conditions on uniformitarianism that perhaps
had not been intended by Hutton: he took a literal approach
to interpreting the principle of uniformity in nature by assuming
that all past events must have conformed to controls exerted
by processes that behaved in the same manner as those processes
behave today. No accommodation was made for past conditions
that do not have modern counterparts. In short, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and other
violent geologic events may indeed have occurred earlier
in Earth history but no
more frequently nor with greater intensity than today; accordingly,
the surface features of the Earth are altered very gradually by a series
of small changes rather than by occasional cataclysmic phenomena.
Lyell's contribution enabled the doctrine of uniformitarianism
to finally hold sway, even though it did impose for the time being
a somewhat limiting condition on the uniformity principle.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
But
modern geology and modern uniformitarianism reject Lyell’s
“extreme” position that violent geologic events
(such as massive volcanic activity, asteroids and meteorites,
and floods) only happened at their current rates and significance.
In contrast, it is acknowledged that catastrophes not only
play a minor role today at their current rates and size but also that at
particular points in earth’s history, they may have
played an even larger and more significant role. However,
despite these acknowledgements, uniformitarian processes are
maintained as the major cause of the bulk of earth’s
geologic features.
“Continental
landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th
and 19th centuries, Gradualism – Lyell's
almost total rejection of any geologic process that was abrupt
and suggestive of catastrophe, however, was in itself an extreme
posture. Research has shown that both gradual and rapid changes
occur.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
“Continental
landform, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries,
Catastrophism – During the late 18th and early 19th
century, the leading proponent of this view was the German mineralogist Abraham
Gottlob Werner. According to Werner, all of the Earth's
rocks were formed by rapid chemical precipitation from a “world
ocean,” which he then summarily disposed of in catastrophic
fashion. Though not directed toward the genesis of landforms
in any coherent fashion, his catastrophic philosophy of changes of
the Earth had two major consequences of geomorphic significance.
First, it indirectly led to the formulation of an opposing,
less extreme view by the Scottish scientist James Hutton in
1785. Second, it was in some measure correct: catastrophes
do occur on the Earth and they do change its landforms. Asteroid
impacts, Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions, hurricanes, floods,
and tectonic erosion of mountain systems all occur, may be
catastrophic, and can create and destroy landforms. Yet, not
all change is catastrophic.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Notice
from the last quote above that floods, volcanic explosions,
and asteroid impacts are all acknowledged as a factor by Hutton
and uniformitarian scientists since Lyell. The phrase “not
all change is catastrophic” is a clear acknowledgement
that some change is caused by catastrophe. The next quote
below confirms this by acknowledging that uniformitarianism
can include “past catastrophes” such as “floods
or earthquakes” that effected earth’s geologic
features and history.
“Geology,
II GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, C Uniformitarianism
– Uniformitarianism contrasts with, for
example, the idea that
past events such as floods or earthquakes were caused by divine
intervention or supernatural causes. Catastrophism, which
calls on major catastrophes to explain earth's history, is
also sometimes contrasted with uniformitarianism. However,
uniformitarianism can include past catastrophes.”
– "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Regarding
catastrophes (even at their current rates) being accommodated
with a minor role in uniformitarian theory, here we return
to the need for equity. The last line of the quote above states,
“uniformitarianism can include past catastrophes.”
Why is it acceptable for uniformitarianism to accommodate
a minor role for catastrophes, but catastrophism is not allowed
to accommodate a minor role for normal, slow processes? Why
is it that the mere occurrence of normal processes eroding
and changing features to a small degree very slowly is thought
to disprove that catastrophes are the cause of major feature
formation? In other words, why does the observation of the
extremely minor effects of processes like erosion necessarily
contradict the theory that features are
formed by catastrophe? Can’t catastrophism accommodate
a very minor role for normal processes in minutely affecting
geologic features after their formation by major catastrophes?
Of course it can. The minor impacts of slow, gradual processes
do not in anyway contradict catastrophism, which fully recognizes
the actual, minor role that we observe these slow processes
playing, a role that slightly alters existing features but
does not form them. And that is all that we see this slow,
normative processes doing.
Effectivley,
the difference between the 2 views is a question of percentage
(or proportion) – which one better fits what can actually
be observed? Which one, uniformitarianism or catastrophism,
is a more reasonable conclusion based upon what we actually
see? Major features being formed by slow, normal processes
but once in a while catastrophes change existing features
that were already formed by normal, slow processes? Or, major
features being formed by catastrophes but afterward normal,
slow processes have a minor impact on those existing features
that were formed by catastrophes? The actual observations
pose a problem because normal, slow processes can only, even
in principle, be observed having minor effects on existing
major structures. They have never been seen producing major
features. Major features have only been seen formed by catastrophes.
This
is a geological parallel to biological evolution where small
variations within a species have been observed but no one
has ever observed the emergence of a new kind of animal. On
both issues, creationism is simply an assertion of what we
can and do actually observe. We never see new types of organisms
being reproduced from an existing type. As we saw in a previous
section, even if true that process would take too long for
us to detect or observe it. And likewise, we never see geologic
features being formed from slow, gradual, normative processes.
Even if true that process would take too long for us to observe.
What we have seen is nothing more and nothing less that what
creation theory asserts, each type of organism only produces
its own type and geologic features only form from catastrophes.
It is uniformitarianism and biological evolution that fill
in gaps, going beyond the empirical evidence and what is observed
to insist that speculations we can never observe are “proven”
to be scientifically true. And why? Not because of scientific
observation, but because of mere philosophical preferences
such as a desire to avoid teleology.
Moving
forward, we can also ask exactly how “minor” is
the role of catastrophe even in uniformitarianism?
The
answer from uniformitarianism is that catastrophes are acknowledged
as having a much larger and significant role during the very
earliest history of the earth (and at particular points since
then) than they do now. Massive volcanic activity, asteroids
and meteors, and floods are all acknowledged by modern uniformitarians
to have occurred at greater, more significant rates at particular
points in the past than they do today and, consequently, to
have played a greater role in geologic feature formation at
that time.
Specifically,
within the uniformitarian, evolutionary worldview, the earliest
stages of earth’s history assert that there was much
greater volcanic activity and that this increased activity
was crucial to the formation of the earth’s geology.
According to the quote below, volcanic activity was much greater
before the Proterozoic era, which started about 2.5 billion
years ago and has been “much less” since then.
“Earth,
geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans,
Development of the oceans – The
abundance of volcanic rocks of Archean age (3.8 to 2.5 billion
years ago) is indicative of the continuing role of intense
volcanic degassing, but since the early Proterozoic (from 2.5
billion years ago), much less volcanic activity has occurred.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Let’s
take a few moments to cover some basics about volcanic phenomena.
Lava is “poured out” onto the earth’s surface
between approximately 700 to 1,200 degrees Celcius (1,300
to 2,200 degress Fahrenheit). This is important because it
establishes the truly catastrophic nature of having an extensive
increase in volcanic activity.
“Lava
– magma (molten
rock) poured out onto
the Earth's surface at temperatures from about 700° to 1,200°
C (1,300° to 2,200° F).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Although
the top surface of the crust is comprised of “a very
thin veneer” of sedimentary rock, igneous rocks are
the predominant form of rock that comprises the Earth.
“Igneous
rock – any of various
crystalline or glassy rocks formed by the cooling and solidification
of molten earth material. Igneous rocks comprise one of
the three principal classes of rocks, the others being metamorphic
and sedimentary. Igneous rocks are formed from the solidification of magma, which
is a hot (600° to 1,300°
C, or 1,100° to 2,400° F) molten
or partially molten rock material. The Earth is composed predominantly
of a large mass of igneous rock with a very thin veneer
of weathered material—namely, sedimentary rock.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Consequently,
according to the next quote below, it is necessary for volcanic
activity and the depositing of lava to be so much more “extensive”
during the earliest earth history in order for biological
evolution to occur. Such an increase would certainly be catastrophic,
as it certainly would be regarded if an increase of this magnitute
(or even a mere fraction of it) occurred today. Furthermore,
that increased volcanic activity in the earth’s past
is said to have played a major role in the large-scale formation
of igneous rocks (rocks formed by lava) and also iron rock
formations. In fact, these events are said to have occured
in a large enough quantity to allow life to “bloom”
on earth when beforehand it could only have occurred to a
narrow, small degree. So, not only is the increase significant
but the role of that increase is extremely significant.
“Earth,
geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans,
Formation of the secondary atmosphere – Primitive
organisms, such as blue-green algae (or cyanobacteria),
cause carbon dioxide and water to react by photosynthesis
to produce carbohydrates, which they need for growth, repair,
and other vital functions, and this reaction releases free oxygen…What happened to all the oxygen that was released? It might be surprising
to learn that it took at least 1 billion years before there
was sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere for oxidative diagenesis
to give rise to red beds (sandstones that are predominantly
red in colour due to fully oxidized iron coating individual
grains) and that 2.2 billion years passed before a large number of life-forms could
evolve. An idea formulated by the American paleontologist
Preston Cloud has been widely
accepted as an answer to this question. The earliest primitive
organisms produced free oxygen as a by-product, and in the
absence of oxygen-mediating enzymes it was harmful to their
living cells and had to be removed. Fortunately
for the development of life on the early Earth there was extensive
volcanic activity, which resulted in the deposition of much
lava, the erosion of which released enormous quantities of iron into the oceans.
This ferrous iron is water-soluble and therefore could
be easily transported, but it had to be converted to ferric
iron, which is highly insoluble, before it could be precipitated
as iron formations. In short, the organisms produced the oxygen
and the iron formations accepted it. Iron formations can be
found in the earliest sediments (those deposited 3.8 billion
years ago) at Isua in West Greenland,
and thus this process must have been operative by this time.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
It
is also important to note that this role for volcanoes constitutes
another major contradiction of uniformitarianism. As we have
seen, uniformitarianism asserts that all the earth’s
features can be accounted for in terms of assuming the same
slow processes occurred in the past in the same manner that
they do today.
“Geochronology,
Development of radioactive dating methods and their application,
Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth –
As previously noted, fundamental
to the principle was the premise that various Earth processes
of the past operated in much the same way as those processes
operate today. The corollary to this was that the rates of
the various ancient processes could be considered the same
as those of the present day.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton,
James – Hutton's
view as stated in these papers was
that the world's geologic phenomena can be explained in terms
of observable processes, and that those processes now at work
on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity
over immensely long periods of time.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Uniformitarianism
– in geology,
the doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner
and with essentially the same intensity as at present
are sufficient to account
for all geologic change.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Not
only is uniformity discarded in terms of the amount of volcanic
activity but also in terms of the nature or type of volcanic
activity. As the next quote below states, even the “component
gases” emitted by the volcanoes of the past is asserted
to have been different than in modern volcanic processes.
Consequently, the uniformitarian, evolutionary worldview breaks
from its defining assumption by describing a role for volcanoes
that is remarkably different than the present rate and role
of volcanic processes. Effectively, geology is inventing a
level of volcanic activity and a type of volcanic activity
that has no counterpart in the present, normative volcanic
processes that we observe today.
“Earth,
geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans,
Formation of the secondary atmosphere – The
Earth's secondary atmosphere began to develop at the time
of planetary differentiation, probably
in connection with volcanic activity. Its component gases,
however, were most likely very different from those emitted
by modern volcanoes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
So,
in summary, according to uniformitarianism, you have much
more massive and extensive volcanic activity and lava deposits
during earlier eras than occur now. This much more extensive
volcanic activity also had different component gases than
today’s volcanoes. Consequently, uniformitarianism sets
aside its defining principle of “uniformity” whenever
it is necessary and whenever it suits evolutionary theory,
particularly when setting it aside is necessary for biological
evolution to occur. So, not only is uniformitarianism an un-provable
philosophical preference, but its one that adherents to uniformitarianism
themselves show to be incorrect by discarding and contradicting
it.
And
volcanic activity is just one example. Meteorite and asteroid
impacts are also described as having a significantly larger
role in the past than their counterpart processes today. The
quote below states that “studies of the moon”
have actually demonstrated how “meteorite impacts helped
shape the Earth’s surface” during its early history,
around “3.5 billion years ago” causing “a
violent infancy” for the planet, which lasted for “hundreds
of millions of years.” Here again, the catastrophic
nature of this increase become clear when we consider how
such an increase in meteorite bombardment (or even just a
fragment of it) would be considered catastrophic today.
“Geology,
History, Geology of the solar system – Geologists
also apply what they have learned about other objects to the
study of Earth. For instance, studies of the moon showed how meteorite
impacts helped shape Earth's surface.” Worldbook,
Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology,
Bryn Mawr
College.
“The
Primeval Biosphere, Figure 11. The
primeval biosphere awoke to a tempestuous world of intermittent
comet impacts, a steaming-hot ocean, a very thick atmosphere
and torrential acid rains. Giant comet impacts would have ejected large
amounts of material into space and spun off violent hurricanes
and tornadoes.” – An Argument for the Cometary
Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists,
Volume 89, 2004
“The
Primeval Biosphere – About 3.5 billion years ago large
cometary impacts would have become increasingly rare, but
when they did occur, they produced enormous cataclysms. The
oceans would have boiled near the impact site, causing hurricanes
and gigantic waterspouts with fantastic ejections of gas and
water into space. Under these
chaotic and seemingly inhospitable conditions, a phenomenon
occurs that is going to have astonishing consequences: Bacteria
begin to multiply in the hot waters of the first oceans.”
– An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,
Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004
“Astronomers
and geologists were discovering that Earth had a violent infancy--hundreds of millions of years after the
planet had formed, giant asteroids and comets still crashed
into it, burning off its young atmosphere and boiling away
its oceans…After the last atmosphere-killing impacts--about
4 billion years ago--smaller
comets, meteorites, and dust from space could, in the
space of a few hundred million years, have brought enough
organic carbon to cover the planet in a layer ten inches deep.”
– First Cell, by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER, Vol. 16 No.
11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
“Earth,
geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The
history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6
billion years.
The oldest known rocks, however, have an isotopic age of only
about 3.9 billion years. There
is, in effect, a stretch of 700
million years for which no geologic record exists, and
the evolution of this pregeologic period of time is not surprisingly
the subject of much speculation. To understand this little-known
period, the following factors have to be considered: the age
of formation at 4.6 billion years ago, the processes in operation until 3.9 billion
years ago, the
bombardment of the Earth by meteorites, and the earliest
zircon crystals…It is known from direct observation
that the surface of
the Moon is covered with a multitude of meteorite craters.
There are about 40 large basins attributable to meteorite
impact. Known as maria, these depressions were filled
in with basaltic lavas caused by the impact-induced melting
of the lunar mantle. Many of these basalts have been analyzed isotopically and found to have
crystallization ages of 3.9 to 4 billion years. It can be
safely concluded that the Earth, with a greater attractive
mass than the Moon, must have undergone more extensive meteorite
bombardment. According to the English-born geologist Joseph
V. Smith, a minimum of 500 to 1,000 impact basins were formed
on the Earth within a period of about 100 to 200 million years
prior to 3.95 billion years ago. Moreover, plausible calculations
suggest that this estimate represents merely the tail end
of an interval of declining meteorite bombardment and that
about 20 times as many basins were formed in the preceding
300 million years. Such intense bombardment would have covered
most of the Earth's surface, with the impacts causing considerable
destruction of the terrestrial crust up to 3.9 billion years
ago. There is, however, no direct evidence of this important
phase of Earth history because rocks older than 3.9 billion
years have not been preserved.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Although
about 100 times as many asteroids as comets approach Earth,
comets pack a bigger
punch—they plunge toward the sun several times faster than asteroids. That means a comet could hit Earth with about 10 times
as much energy as an asteroid with the same mass…In 1994 Jupiter's gravity shredded comet
Shoemaker-Levy 9 into 21 visible chunks, which then plunged
into the gas giant piece after piece. A
typical piece detonated with the force of about 25,000 megatons
of TNT. A chain of blasts around Earth might wreak more havoc
than a single impact.” – To Catch a Comet,
by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 24 No. 10, October 2003
“Chemical
Evidence – The separation of these layers dates
to the earliest period of the Earth’s formation, when
it was still accumulating mass by the accretion of planetesimals.
The energy of the accretionary
impacts was transformed into a heat so intense that Earth’s
surface was covered with a thick layer of molten lava, perhaps
to very great depths.” – An Argument for the
Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American
Scientists, Volume 89, 2004
“Meteorite
– Meteorites generally have a pitted surface and fused
charred crust. The larger ones strike the earth with tremendous
impact, creating huge craters…The meteorites that
formed craters as large as the ones in Vredefort, Sudbury, and the Yucatán must have had a devastating effect on the
nearby environment, and
they also probably affected global weather patterns. The force
of collision would have spewed molten rock far around the
impact site. Dust and poisonous gases that were produced by
the crash when it vaporized minerals in the ground would have
darkened the sky over a huge area for months or even years.
Many scientists believe that the event that
caused the crater in the Yucatán
Peninsula
may have created global climate changes that led to the extinction
of the last of the dinosaurs…Dust
and gas circulating in the atmosphere could cut off sunlight
for months, killing crops and reducing the food supply
for the entire world. Fortunately, astronomers calculate the
average frequency of major collisions at only about one collision
every 300,000 years. ” – "Meteorite,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
And
the increase role of volcanoes and catastrophic impacts is
not limited only to the early “infancy” of the
earth around 3.5 billion years ago. There have been particular
points in time in earth’s history since then when uniformitarian,
evolutionary theory has to call upon major catastrophic volcanic
activity and asteroid impacts to explain the geologic and
biological history of the earth.
In
geologic time, the Permean Period is relatively recent compared
to 3.5 billion years ago. The Permean Period spans from 286
to 245 million years ago.
“Permian
period – last period of the Paleozoic Era. It began about 286 million years ago and ended 245 million years ago,
extending from the close of the Carboniferous to the outset
of the Triassic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
And
during the Permean Period around 250 million years ago volcanic
activity in Siberia is asserted
to have increased so massively that it caused the greatest
global extinction in the history of the earth.
“Earth,
History of Earth – Several times in Earth's history,
there have been great extinctions, periods when many of Earth's
living things die out. The greatest of these events, called
the Permian extinction, happened about 250 million years ago.
Almost 90 percent of the species on Earth during the Permian
became extinct in a relatively short time. The cause of
this event is a mystery, though many
scientists suspect that huge volcanic eruptions in what is
now Siberia may have disturbed the climate, causing many organisms
to die out.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
Such
a massive rise in volcanic activity effecting “a relatively
short time” in geologic history constitutes a significant
departure from uniformitarianism.
And
a similar case exists with meteorite and asteroid activity.
After the Permian Period, there is another extinction involving
the dinosaurs near the end of the Cretaceous Period, which
was about 65 million years ago. As the quotes below will demonstrate,
this extinction is largely believed to have been caused by
an asteroid impact in the Yucatan
peninsula of North
America,
which would have had enormous effects on climates and the
surface features of the earth. But notice from the quotes,
particularly the middle of the first quote, that even if the
asteroid impact did not singularly cause the extinction of
dinosaurs, that impact and its timing are regarded as fact.
So, this massive impact is attested to by other means and
is not simply a hypothetical for explaining the extinction
of the dinosaurs. However, concerning the extinction of the
dinosaurs, notice also from the end of the first quote below
that a once again a significant increase in volcanic activity
is listed as an alternate or auxiliary explanation, which
would also constitute a major departure from uniformitarianism.
“Dinosaurs,
The search for dinosaurs, The K–T boundary event –
It was not only the dinosaurs that disappeared
65 million years ago at the Cretaceous–Tertiary, or
K–T, boundary. Many other organisms became extinct or
were greatly reduced in abundance and diversity, and the
extinctions were quite different between, and even among,
marine and terrestrial organisms…Whatever factors caused it, there was undeniably
a major, worldwide biotic change near the end of the Cretaceous.
But the extermination of the dinosaurs is the best-known
change by far, and it has been a puzzle to paleontologists,
geologists, and biologists for two centuries. Many
hypotheses have been offered over the years to explain dinosaur
extinction, but only a few have received serious consideration.
Proposed causes have included everything from disease
to heat waves and resulting sterility, freezing cold spells,
the rise of egg-eating mammals, and X rays from a nearby exploding
supernova. Since the early 1980s, attention has focused
on the so-called asteroid theory put forward by the American
geologist Walter Alvarez, his father, physicist Luis Alvarez,
and their coworkers. This theory is consistent with the timing
and magnitude of some extinctions, especially in the oceans,
but it does not fully explain the patterns on land and does
not eliminate the possibility that other factors were at work
on land as well as in the seas…The asteroid theory – The discovery of an abnormally high concentration
of the rare metal iridium at, or very close to, the K–T
boundary provides what has been recognized as one of those
rare instantaneous geologic time markers that seem to be worldwide.
This iridium anomaly, or spike, was first found by Walter
Alvarez in the Cretaceous–Tertiary stratigraphic sequence
at Gubbio,
Italy,
in the 1970s. The spike has subsequently been detected at
hundreds of localities in Denmark and elsewhere, both in rock
outcrops on land and in core samples drilled from ocean floors…Because
the levels of iridium
are higher in meteorites than on the Earth, the Gubbio
anomaly is thought to have an extraterrestrial explanation…The
level of iridium in meteorites has been accepted as representing
the average level throughout the solar system and, by extension,
the universe. Accordingly, the iridium concentration at
the K–T boundary is widely attributed to a collision
between the Earth and a huge meteoror asteroid. The size of
the object is estimated at about 10 km (6.2 miles) in diameter
and one quadrillion metric tons in weight; the velocity at
the time of impact is reckoned to have been several hundreds
of thousands of kilometres per hour. The crater resulting
from such a collision would be some 100 km or more in diameter.
Such an impact site (called an astrobleme), known as the Chicxulub
crater, may have been identified in the Yucatán Peninsula. The asteroid theory is widely accepted as the most probable explanation
of the K–T iridium anomaly, but it does not appear
to account for all the paleontological data. An impact explosion of this kind would have ejected an enormous volume
of terrestrial and asteroid material into the atmosphere,
producing a cloud of dust and solid particles that would have
encircled the Earth and blocked out sunlight for many months,
possibly years. The loss of sunlight could have eliminated
photosynthesis and resulted in the death of plants and the
subsequent extinction of herbivores, their predators, and
scavengers. The K–T mass extinctions, however, do not
seem to be fully explained by this hypothesis…It
is entirely possible that a culmination of ordinary biological
changes and some catastrophic events, including increased
volcanic activity, took place around the end of the Cretaceous.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dinosaur,
VII EXTINCTION, Controversy surrounds the extinction of the
dinosaurs – According to one theory, dinosaurs were
slowly driven to extinction by environmental changes linked
to the gradual withdrawal of shallow seas from the continents
at the end of the dinosaurian era. Proponents of this theory
postulate that dinosaurs dwindled in number and variety over
several million years. An
opposing theory proposes that the impact of an asteroid or
comet caused catastrophic destruction of the environment,
leading to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Evidence to support
this theory includes the discovery of a buried impact crater
(thought to be the result of a large comet striking the earth)
that is 200 km (124 mi) in diameter in the Yucatán
Peninsula of Mexico. A spray
of debris, called an ejecta sheet, which was blown from the
edge of the crater, has been found over vast regions of North
America. Comet-enriched material from the impact's
fiery explosion was distributed all over the world. With radiometric
dating (see Dating Methods: Radiometric Dating), scientists
have used the decay rates of certain atoms to date the crater,
ejecta sheet, and fireball layer. Using similar techniques
to date the dramatic changes in the record of microscopic
fossils, they have found that the impact and the dinosaur
extinction occurred nearly simultaneously. Although
large amounts of ash suggest that most of North and South
America was devastated by fire from the impact,
the longer-term planetwide environmental effects of the impact
were ultimately more lethal to life than the fire. Dust
blocked sunlight from the earth's surface for many months.
Scorched sulfur from the impact site, water vapor and
chlorine from the oceans, and nitrogen from the air combined
to produce a worldwide
fallout of intensely acidic rain. Scientists postulate
that darkness and acid rain caused plant growth to cease.
As a result, both the herbivorous dinosaurs, which were dependent
on plants for food, as well as the carnivorous dinosaurs,
which fed on the herbivores, were exterminated. On the other
hand, animals such as frogs, lizards, and small insect-eating
turtles and mammals, which were dependent on organisms that
fed on decaying plant material, were more likely to survive.
Their survival indicates that, in most areas, the surface of the earth
did not freeze.” – "Dinosaur," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
“Dinosaur,
Why dinosaurs died out – Scientists
have developed many theories to explain dinosaur extinction.
The two major theories involve (1) gradual climate changes
and (2) the collision of an asteroid with the earth. The
first theory argues that, toward the end of the Cretaceous
Period, the shallow
seas dried up and the climate became more varied everywhere
around the globe. Winters became too cold and summers too
hot for dinosaurs to survive. Dinosaurs were too large
to hibernate in dens, and they had no fur or feathers for
protection against the cold. They also probably had difficulty
cooling off in hot weather. Thus,
death and extinction came as a result of gradually colder
winters and hotter summers. The other major extinction theory
claims that a large asteroid hit the earth at the end of the
Cretaceous. This asteroid impact would have thrown billions
of tons of dust and debris into the atmosphere. Heat from
the impact may have caused huge fires worldwide. Together
the clouds of smoke and debris would have blocked sunlight
from reaching the surface of the earth for many months. Although
the seeds and roots of plants had a good chance of surviving
this lightless period, the plants themselves stopped growing
and died. If the catastrophe was severe and widespread enough,
plant-eating dinosaurs would have starved to death. As the
plant-eaters died, so did the meat-eating dinosaurs that fed
on them. In addition,
the darkened skies caused land temperatures to drop below
freezing for 6 to 12 months in many parts of the world.
Such low temperatures further damaged the dinosaur populations.
According to the asteroid theory, small mammals and birds
survived because they were protected from the cold by fur
or feathers. Mammals and birds also could feed entirely on
seeds, nuts, and rotting vegetation. Other survivors may have
escaped extinction because they could live at the bottom of
lakes or burrow underground. Most scientists, however, feel that no single
theory completely explains why dinosaurs suffered extinction.
They argue that a combination of causes contributed to the
dinosaurs' disappearance.” – Worldbook, Contributor:
David B. Weishampel, Ph.D., Professor, Johns
Hopkins University
School
of Medicine.
“Meteorite
– Meteorites generally have a pitted surface and fused
charred crust. The larger ones strike the earth with tremendous
impact, creating huge craters…The meteorites that
formed craters as large as the ones in Vredefort, Sudbury, and the Yucatán must have had a devastating effect on the
nearby environment, and
they also probably affected global weather patterns. The force
of collision would have spewed molten rock far around the
impact site. Dust and poisonous gases that were produced by
the crash when it vaporized minerals in the ground would have
darkened the sky over a huge area for months or even years.
Many scientists believe that the event that
caused the crater in the Yucatán
Peninsula
may have created global climate changes that led to the extinction
of the last of the dinosaurs…Dust
and gas circulating in the atmosphere could cut off sunlight
for months, killing crops and reducing the food supply
for the entire world. Fortunately, astronomers calculate the
average frequency of major collisions at only about one collision
every 300,000 years. ” – "Meteorite,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
The
relevance of these admissions is simple. The uniformitarian
view is not only an assumption, but it is a view that contradicts
its main assumption. Consequently, uniformitarianism is shown
to be scientifically less valid than catastrophism for 2 reasons.
First, uniformitarianism cannot be observed whereas catastrophism
has been observed, as we will see in our next section. And
second, uniformitarianism contradicts itself and does so in
a way that affirms the dramatic role of unique catastrophes
that have no counterpart in present, slow, normative processes.
Furthermore,
since uniformitarianism ends up actually asserting catastrophism,
the only difference between the Biblical catastrophism model
and evolutionary theory is when, or how long ago, the catastrophic
period occurred. Was the catastrophe billions of years ago,
or was the catastrophe only a few thousand years ago? Moreover,
the potential interaction between both a cataclysmic event,
such as an asteroid impact, and a climate change to cause
the extinction of the dinosaurs makes the Biblical model all
the more plausible (especially if the Flood was triggered
in part, either directly or indirectly, by a meteor or asteroid
collision).
Ultimately,
given uniformitarianism’s acknowledgement of the contributions
of violent catastrophic early stages in earth’s history,
the major departures from uniformitarianism in terms of volcanoes
and meteors at particular instances since the earliest times,
and the acknowledgement of the minor role that catastrophes
of this kind continue to play at their present rates and magnitudes,
the insistence upon uniformitarianism as the primary mechanism
for geologic feature formation and the rejection of catastrophism
is shown to be meaningless nonsense. As we can see, catastrophe
simply does play the role that catastrophism theory and creationism
ascribes to it.
And
not only is uniformitarianism contradicted by its own acknowledgements,
but it is also contradicted by the evidence for the particular
catastrophe of a global Flood. And that leads us to our next
segment.