Joshua and Jana Gurtler currently lives near Philadelphia, PA. In addition to preaching, Joshua has a Ph.D. in food microbiology and works as a research scientist for the USDA. He can be reached at gurtljb@gmail.com.
Here is a secret that secular geologists don’t want you to know: many now acknowledge that Biblical geologists may have been right all along in interpreting the geological column as being formed by catastrophic processes.
Summary
Secular geology used to interpret the geological column as being formed by “uniformitarianism” (i.e., slow and gradual buildup over hundreds of millions of years). In recent years, however, secular geologists have conceded that the Biblical geologists may have been right all along in interpreting the geological column as being formed by catastrophic processes. Although they still deny the Biblical worldwide flood, secular geologists now concede that the column was formed by “neo-catastrophism.”
Body
Prior to circa AD 1800, the formation of the geological column (the thousands of feet of sedimentary layers of rock that make up most of the earth’s crust) was interpreted by most western universities (e.g., Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, etc.) as a result of cataclysmic processes (i.e., catastrophism), most notably, interpreted by the ex-nihilo creation of the world by Jehovah and the global noahic flood. However, with rising modernism, and the mad rush to discredit Biblical miracles and/or supply naturalistic explanations for all of these phenomena, men such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, James Hutton and Charles Lyell provided an alternative explanation for the formation of the geologic column that was embraced by the secular world: uniformitarianism, or gradualism, in opposition to Georges Cuvier’s assertion of geological catastrophism. “During his time at the Museum of Natural History, Lamarck came into conflict with Cuvier over both geological gradualism and transmutation, both concepts to which Cuvier was totally antagonistic” (Behie and Oxenham, 157).
Uniformitarianism (gradualism) affirms that the same geological rates and conditions that occur today, wherein sediment accumulates on the earth’s crust, were responsible for slowly building the geologic column over hundreds of millions of years. The key assumption is that geologic formation is slow and gradual. Lyell mockingly wrote that the Biblical creationists of his day would not be able to stand up to his “anti-noahic” writings.
Few realize that it was Lyell’s teaching that most heavily influenced young Charles Darwin, when he spent five years sailing around the world in 1832 as a naturalist aboard the H.M.S. Beagle. Most believe that it was the biological diversity that deluded Darwin into losing his faith in the Biblical teaching, from which he developed his evolutionary ideas. Although Darwin did record biological findings on his trip, the chief catalyst that morphed him from a communion-partaking believer at the beginning of the journey into a creationist critic by the end, were actually the geological and hydrological features that he encountered and recorded during the journey. Darwin was heavily influenced by Lyell’s book, The Principles of Geology, which he read during this period. By the end of the voyage, Darwin concluded that the Holy Scriptures had no more validity than the writings of a barbarian. Lyell convinced Darwin (as a crude example here) that if it presently takes 100 years to build an inch of sediment on some parcel of land, then a 1,000 foot cliff today must have been formed over a period of ca. 1.2 million years (i.e., 1,000 feet x 12 inches x 100 years = 1,200,000 years).
During this era of academic and philosophical transition, there were Biblical creationist geologists (discussed extensively by Dr. Terry Mortenson) who did their best to stem the tide, and argue for geological catastrophism, opposing uniformitarian gradualism. They were summarily dismissed and mocked as fable-believing churchgoers, upholding an archaic theological position and refusing to accept the Lamarck-Hutton-Lyell revisionist geology of the day. Gradualism is still the belief of most mainstream secular philosophers and scientists, and is taught in primary and secondary schools, as well as to non-geology majors in college. What the best geologists know, as well as many professors, geology majors and graduate students, is that with regard to catastrophism, Bible-believing geologists were generally right all along. In the most authoritative writings of the geology literature, it has been admitted that uniformitarianism (as taught by Lyell and passed down to the present day) died an empirically-validated death long ago. Space here does not permit inclusion of the many quotes by secularists who admit that “neo-catastrophism” is chiefly responsible for the geologic column, and that gradualism was wrong all along. Nevertheless, a few are here provided to corroborate this assertion.
Hear from the eminent late Harvard paleontologist, Steven J. Gould, writing on this very issue over 50 years ago.
“Uniformitarianism is a dual concept. Substantive uniformitarianism (a testable theory of geologic change postulating uniformity of rates of material conditions) is false and stifling to hypothesis formation... Substantive uniformitarianism as a descriptive theory has not withstood the test of new data and can no longer be maintained in any strict manner... The term today is an anachronism [outdated term]: for we need no longer take special pains to affirm the scientific nature of our discipline” (Gould, 1965, 223, 227).
In 1984, Gould wrote: “I wish to argue the following: (1) Gradualism has operated for the past one hundred and fifty years as a serious constraining bias in the history of geology. (2) Gradualism was never ‘proved from the rocks’ by Lyell and Darwin, but was rather imposed as a bias upon nature” (Gould, 1984, 16).
If the highest tiers of paleontology and geology scholars knew this half a century ago, then why is uniformitarianism (gradualism) still taught in schools, museums, colleges, state and national parks today to convince the uninformed that the geological column is hundreds of millions of years old? The answer is so shockingly simple that some may not believe me if I told you myself. So, consider the following quote by Dr. James Shea, Professor Geology, University of Wisconsin:
“If the creationists could mount a successful attack on the validity of uniformitarianism, they would succeed in their effort to discredit modern geology” (Shea, 105).
Finally, here are three more experts endorsing the idea that uniformitarian gradualism is not a valid theory or nomenclature for explaining the geological column today.
Dr. Peter E. Gretener (Professor, Department of Geology, University of Calgary) said,
“Despite many rescue attempts, the term ‘uniformitarianism’ remains an unfortunate choice. Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the course of the earth’s history is anything but uniform. The term ‘uniformitarianism’ should be abolished because it is misleading” (Gretener, 87).
Dr. R.H. Dott (Stanley A. Tyler Distinguished Professor of Sedimentary Geology, University of Wisconsin) stated,
“Finally, it even means that catastrophism, in the sense of not straining the intensities of processes, was a better premise than Lyell’s uniformitarianism” (Dott, 16).
Dr. Derek V. Agar (Evolutionist, Agnostic, Professor and Head of the Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College of Swansea) wrote,
“My intention is to show that catastrophism (in my sense) or at least episodicity, is apparent in everything... For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of ‘catastrophic’ events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable” (Ager, xi).
“One must constantly ask oneself, ‘Is the present a long enough key to unlock the secrets of the past?’ I shall discuss this further in chapter 12... I think that the ‘catastrophist’ Georges Cuvier was a better geologist than the ‘uniformitarian’ Charles Lyell and my first chapter is devoted to a defence of that great Frenchman” (ibid, xviii).
“Coal seams, like so many other things in earth history, were formed in very brief moments, geologically speaking” (ibid, 47).
“Everyone knows, or at least accepts, that things were very different in the early days of earth history. There surely our strict uniformitarianism approach does not apply” (ibid, 165, 166).
The two major events that laid down the sedimentary layers, as described in the Bible are:
The Creation
1. The creation of the world and bringing together dry land.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so… Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear;’ and it was so” (Gen. 1:6-9).
The Flood
2. The great Noahic flood, resulting in/from the great fountains of the deep being opened up, tectonic plate shifts, volcanic activity creating sedimentary layers interspersed with ash, and the compacting of thousands of feet of vegetation and organic debris, creating the great coal seams, oil and natural gas deposits.
All the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened… All the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered (Gen. 7:11, 19).
Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains… The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them (Ps. 104:6-8).
I challenge you to take this knowledge and spread it within your purview of influence. Finally, thanks go out to Amanda Smelser for reviewing this manuscript and providing helpful feedback.
Sources
Ager, Derek V. The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Behie, Alison M. and Marc F. Oxenham. Taxonomic Tapestries: The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research. (Canberra, Anu Press, 2015) 157.
Dott, R.H., Jr. “What is unique about geological reasoning?” GSA Today 8.10 (October, 1998): 15-18.
Gould, S.J. “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?” American Journal of Science 263 (1965): 223-228.
_________. “Toward the Vindication of Punctuational Change.” In: W.A. Berggren and J.A. Van Couvering, Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Gretener, Peter, E. “Reflections on the ‘Rare Event’ and Related Concepts in Geology.” In: W.A. Berggren and J.A. Van Couvering, Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Shea, James H. “Creationism, Uniformitarianism, Geology and Science.” Journal of Geologic Education 31:2 (March, 1983): 105-110.