What Evolutionists Say – About Uniformitarianism

I have written previously about this subject in my articles on this website about Charles Lyell and George Young. In those articles I emphasized how the Church unnecessarily had accepted a principle that is without true historical or scientific basis. I think it is clear that Charles Darwin would never have published his influential book on evolution if he had not been introduced to Lyell’s ideas of uniformitarianism and deep time. In this article we will see what some prominent evolutionists have to say about this topic.

Starting in 1954 we have this defining quote: “This is the great underlying principle of modern geology and is known as the principle of uniformitarianism…Without the principle of uniformitarianism there could hardly be a science of geology that was more than description.” [Thornbury, William D., Principles of Geomorphology, New York: Wiley, 1954, p. 16-17.]

We can see in this quote that the intellectuals of the Enlightenment forced onto the science of geology an artificial requirement for an historical component to the field of study. So, if secular thought was going to be able to wrest away from the Church control of Western culture, it had to invent a new anti-biblical history. And to accomplish that goal, Lyell and the other Bible minimalists of the 19th century, used the ideas of uniformitarianism and deep time. The seminal question is was this action valid – was/is there any truth to the new history? What do prominent evolutionary scientists say?

“Surely what we know as geo history originates not within the rocks but within the minds of their human observers. As a creation of the human intellect, our geo histories may owe more than is commonly supposed to processes acting within our own cerebra.” [Davies, Gordon Herries, “Bangs Replace Whimpers,” Nature 365:115, 1993.]

“It is hereby submitted that most scientists are guilty of an overly-zealous interpretation of the doctrine of uniformitarianism. Many instructors dismiss the possibilities of global catastrophes altogether, whereas others ridicule and scoff at the early ideas. These same instructors will implore their students to think scientifically and to develop the principles of multiple-working hypotheses. The fact is, the doctrine of uniformitarianism is no more ‘proved’ than some of the early ideas of world-wide cataclysms have been disproved.” [Heylmun, Edgar B., “Should We Teach Uniformitarianism?” Journal of Geological Education, vol. 19, no. 1 (January 1971), p. 35.]

This same authority also wrote: “We find certain rock types in the geologic column that are not being seen form, at least in quantity, anywhere on earth today. Where can granite be observed forming? Where can dolomite or siliceous iron formations be seen to form in quantity? Yet we have thousands of cubic miles of these rock types in the crust of the earth. The Paleozoic Era was marked by carbonate rock deposition, yet carbonate types are quite subordinate in modern sequences of sediments. Herz attributes the formation of anorthosite to the ‘anorthosite event,’ which was possibly a great cataclysm in the Precambrian history of the earth. It is possible that other rock types were created during and following catastrophic events on earth.” [ibid, p. 36.]

In the late 20th century a number of evolutionists wrote about how they considered themselves as neocatastrophists. Principal among them was Derek Ager who championed catastrophe in the rock record, but took care to consistently paint creationists as the ‘lunatic fringe’ so that he could continue to keep company with others in the evolutionist camp. Nevertheless, once an evolutionist accepts catastrophism it becomes very difficult for him to promote as foundational the uniformitarianism he was once taught. Two neocatastrophists put it this way: “Catastrophism is enjoying a renaissance in geology. For the last 180 years, geologists have applied consistently a uniformitarian approach to their studies that has stressed slow gradual changes as defined by Lamarck, Lyell, and Darwin. Now, many of us are accepting that unusual catastrophic events have occurred repeatedly during the course of earth history. The events were significant, since they caused sudden drastic environmental disturbances as well as mass extinctions.” [Hsu, Kenneth, J. and Judith A. McKenzie, “Rare Events in Geology Discussed at Meeting,” Geotimes, vol. 31 (March 1986), p. 11.)

Later, Hsu lamented: “But the working hypothesis of the last century has been turned into a dogma of today. Substantive uniformitarianism has been adopted as an article of faith, and catastrophists have been labeled fellow travelers of creationists.” [Hsu, Kenneth J., “Darwin’s Three Mistakes,” Geology, vol. 14 (June 1986), p. 309.]

Woe are the neocatastrophists getting categorized with creationists! Never mind the scientific evidence for catastrophe – “just don’t associate us with those lunatic creationists.” Catastrophes are now acceptable to geology, but not the single catastrophe so clearly described in the Bible. What is the modern evidence? Does it jibe with Lyell?

“Furthermore, much of Lyell’s uniformitarianism, specifically his ideas on identity of ancient and modern causes, gradualism, and constancy of rate, has been explicitly refuted by the definitive modern sources, as well as by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that, as substantive theories, his ideas on these matters were simply wrong.” [Shea, James H., “Twelve Fallacies of Uniformitarianism,” Geology, vol. 10 (September 1982). P. 456.]

A take away from the quotes above is that those who continue to promote, teach, and indoctrinate uniformitarianism in museums, papers, and schools are “simply wrong.” So far as I can tell uniformitarianism is still the principle of secular geology that undergirds much of the materialistic paradigm. I wonder how many theistic evolutionists and liberal Christians might convert to Biblical Christianity if they would take a serious look into the actual evidence. If these categories of people in the Church would come to see the light, perhaps even those lost theologians in our seminaries might be convinced to look at the evidence.

Here is another evidence for catastrophe from evolutionist writings: “Experimental data on crystallization rates suggests that many large crystals observed in granitic rocks could have grown in a matter of hours—certainly no more than a few tens of years.” [Clemens, John, “Granites and Granitic Magmas: Strange Phenomena and New Perspectives on Some old Problems,” Proceedings of the Geologists Association, 116:9, 15, 2005.]

Finally, consider this quote: “Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hard rock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist. ‘But this was cut in less than a decade.’” [Findley, Rowe (Journalist who covered the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and former assistant editor of National Geographic), “Mount St. Helens: Nature on Fast Forward,” National Geographic, p. 121, May 2000.]

Whose history are you going to accept? Are you going to accept the secularist history that promotes evolution and millions of years, a false history promoted by fallible men? Or, are you going to accept the infallible history of the Bible provided to all by the Creator God who was there in the beginning?

J.D. Mitchell


Please feel free to share...Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn