Continuing
from the previous post, in which we discussed the fact that geologists
haven't always agreed about the history of our planet. In fact, they have
debated back and forth between catastrophism and uniformitarianism over the
last few hundred years! We also discussed, in part, the ongoing struggle from
catastrophism to gradualism to uniformitarianism and now a strong movement is
heading back toward catastrophism. However, in that process of
ever-changing beliefs, theories, and understandings, during James Hutton’s
period of gradualism, in 1789 was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh
Bulletin Volume of the famous dissertation “The
Earth theory, or on terrestrial composition, disintegration and restoration of
law.”
In fact, it was read before the
Society three years earlier in 1785 in a little known pamphlet called the
“Abstract,” in which Hutton first announced
publicly his famous Theory of the Earth.
It seems Hutton himself was the
author of the “Abstract,” and that it was published
in 1785, some three years before the Royal Society paper was issued in the
Society's Transactions. The
writer concluded that the “Abstract,” and not, as had been
supposed, the Transactions paper,
constituted the first form in which The Theory was
published.
At the time, Richard Kirwan, the
famed and widely known Irish geologist, chemist, meteorologist and former
attorney in the Irish bar, winner of the Copley Medal, a scientific award given
by the Royal Society, and at the time President of the Royal Irish Academy,
criticized Hutton and his work, accusing him of atheism and poor logic, and
continued with a lively dispute with upholders of Hutton’s theory for many years.
Later in life, Kirwan refused a baronetcy before his death in 1812.
In answer to Kirwan’s criticism,
Hutton published in 1795, a two volume, roughly 1200-page version of his
theory, in which he described Earth as a living organism. His work would become
influential for centuries, even inspiring Charles Darwin during his writings on
evolution. Hutton’s idea was a major turning point in the field of
geology, and established it as a proper science. In fact, today, he is
considered “the father of modern geology,” and credited with claiming that the erosion of
landforms, the deposition of sediments, the drifting of continents and the
eruption of volcanoes, were all happening long ago, on roughly the
same scale and at roughly the same rate as they are today.
He
called his theory “gradualism,” which was popularized by another geologist, Charles Lyell, who expanded Hutton's theory of gradualism into the theory of uniformitarianism. Lyell
observed processes that made small changes
in Earth's features and inferred that similar changes had happened in the past. His fierce insistence that the
processes that alter the Earth are uniform through time and viewed the history
of Earth as being vast and directionless held sway for more than a hundred years, however, recently we have seen a rise in the theory of catastrophism once again.
At the time, Hutton’s theory led to the idea that mountains are uplifted, valleys carved, and sediments
deposited over immense time periods by the same physical forces and chemical
reactions seen operating today, and sometimes described as gradualism—in which slow incremental changes, such as erosion,
gradually created all the Earth's geological features.
Thus, in its original form,
catastrophism eventually fell from grace with the scientific community as they
reasoned what they felt were more logical explanations for natural history. But catastrophism was
renewed in international interest in the 1970s and has been gaining momentum
ever since, partly because of a return to Biblical understanding, but mostly
because modern measurement techniques, knowledge, scientific studies and
findings have led numerous independent-thinking scientists to question Hutton’s views.
Originally, of course, the theory
and subsequently today’s continued belief,
developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when both tradition and
scientific laws were based on Biblical knowledge, and paramount was Noah’s
Flood. This idea of catastrophism, believed by a growing number of geologists
today, interprets the origin of the Rocky Mountains or the Alps as resulting
from a huge earthquake that
uplifted them quickly, and when viewing the Yosemite Valley in California they
assert they were not carved by glaciers,
but rather the floor of the valley collapsed over 1,000 feet to its present
position in one giant plunge. Strict catastrophic theory also argues for long
periods of inactivity following catastrophic events (a thorough understanding of this is outlined in our book Scientific Fallacies and Other Myths).
So we have two prevalent theories
today, one of which being Hutton’s gradualism and Lyell’s uniformitarianism on
the one hand, which has the majority of support and has become entrenched in
the public conscience and taught at schools and universities. The other is the
much older theory of catastrophism that had shaped thinking for much of Earth’s
scientific development prior to the end of the eighteenth century, and is now
making a comeback among many scientists.
As a side note, it might be of
interest to know that Paleontology, which is the study of fossils, is concerned
not only with their description and classification but also with an analysis of
the evolution of the organisms involved. According to Paleontologists, simple fossil forms can be found, they claim, in
early Precambrian rocks as old as 3,500,000,000 (3.5 billion years), and it is
widely considered by them that life on Earth must have begun before the appearance of
those oldest rocks. Thus, Paleontological research of the fossil record since the
Cambrian Period has contributed much to the theory of evolution of life on
Earth.
Following this theoretical concept
is a simple one—if rocks were used (indestructible matter) to build this Earth
from other locations by Divine beings and indicated in the Pearl of Great Price, then the idea that this Earth has to be
older than the rocks found on it, is fallacious and without merit—just a
thought for consideration.
As for the other comments submitted
by the reader, such as “it is well known that the Andes rose over time,” that
is a uniformitarianism view of geology, and one not shared by Biblical events
and the word of God connected to them. That theory is well known among godless
scientists who rely on their own knowledge and not the word of God. This blog
does not agree with that theory.
As for where the Andes were when
they rose, the scriptural record says that “there shall be many mountains laid
low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height
is great” (Helaman 14:23, emphasis added). That would seem to preclude
they rose out of the water, but rose up from flat land (valleys), as we have
continually stated. However, since there are valleys at various levels of
elevation, it does not mean they rose from level ground at “sea level,” but simply that they
rose up from land considered valleys by the Nephites.
As for lands in Brazil rising. The
entire continent rose, or tilted, with the west coastal area (according to
Darwin) rising higher. Thus, the continent along the Pacific rim rose higher
out of the water, as the mountains rose, bringing up the entire central area,
called the Amazon Drainage Basin today, which is confirmed by geologists—we
just differ in the time frame.
Which brings us to the scriptural
record that says the mountains rose during the crucifixion, that places the
event around 34 A.D. In placing that Land of Promise in the Peruvian area, that
means the Andes were the mountains which rose to a height “which was great” so
they came up in 34 A.D. At what level (or various levels) they were before they
rose during the crucifixion is not known.
As for three hours. Yes, we are
saying they rose during the events described in the scriptural record, which
states quite clearly: “and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they
did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the
time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done
in about the space of three hours” (3 Nephi 8:19).
To our understanding there have been
four major catastrophic events that affected either the entire Earth, or at
least significant parts of it: 1) The Creation; 2) the Flood; 3) the Earth was
divided; 4) the destruction in the Land of Promise during the Crucifixion.
All of those events occurred
suddenly and in a short period of time and had extreme effect on the Earth and
its geologic makeup. In addition, there have been other catastrophic events
that might have been more local in scope, but affecting geologic makeup
none-the-less.
In short, then, the events described
in the scriptural record associated with the crucifixion found in 3 Nephi,
depicts serious changes in the topography of the Land of Promise that took
place in three hours and over a three day period. Obviously, this is not
something the gradualism crowd is going to accept, for they rely on man's knowledge and not that of God. However, it is clearly stated
as how the Lord accomplished the events described.
We need to be careful about making old earth uniformitarianism fit into the biblical account. The Pearl of Great Price (Moses 3:7) is clear that there were no life on earth before Adam. You mention that there was life in the PreCambrian. There is a problem with that. ICR.org the leading Creationist Christian site reported that the bacteria that was found by these scientist when examined are virtually identical to modern bacteria. The bacteria are found in chert in carbonate rock. Chert is a replacement rock that was injected later into the rock hence the origin of the bacteria. They are not ancient but quite modern.
ReplyDeleteThe PreCambrian-Cambrian boundary is a real problem for the OE scientists. There is an explosion of life in the Cambrian and disputed claims of life in the PreCambrian. The Cambrian was deposited during the great flood of Noah's time, hence the reason for the countless billions of complex fossils found. The life forms are very complex and show no signs of evolution at all. They all appear fully formed all seemly at once in the fossil record.
Good article - thanks Del.
Thank you for your comment. It was not my intention to make such a claim, but to show that Paleontologists make such a claim in support of their evolution theory. I have added a few words to clarify that issue for anyone who misunderstood the intent.
ReplyDeleteI am fairly convinced that the fossil record was "sorted" by liquefaction during the flood, just like the sediment layers, and does not represent millions of years of evolving life. But what do I know? Doesn't catastrophe make fossils, as opposed to long periods of calm? I'm no scientist though.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for the interesting blogs that encourage me to look around a bit more for information rather than defaulting to the apparent consensus view.
Todd, Absolutely! For example, brachiopods fossil are found in carbonate rock with closed shells. This shows being buried alive. When a brachiopod dies its shell pops open. This shows that the fossil record was created catastrophically and not over millions of years.
ReplyDeleteYou can believe the scriptures when they tell you that Adam was the first man and the first flesh on the earth. I'm a geologist and I've proved the Biblical creation in so many ways. Uniformitarianism is not correct.
The expression: "formed man from the dust of the ground" according to President Young means Adam was formed the same way we are formed: our mother eats food from "dust" and our body is formed. So according to President Young, Moses 3:7 is saying that Adam was formed on a previous earth and came here with a resurrected body. As such, he was the first flesh and first man upon the earth. Every living thing for this earth had been created spiritually in preparation, and with Adam here these life forms began to obtain physical bodies and Adam named them (verse 19) as they came here. Right?
ReplyDeleteMoses 3:7 that you quoted about Adam being "the first man and first flesh" is BEFORE he was put into the garden of Eden and thus before the fall. So it cannot be talking about Adam with a body exactly like we have.
erichard, interesting take on Adam. I have a different belief and the hint is Eve. A rib was taken from Eve to create her. A rib is where the best cells are taken to clone some living thing. She is a clone of Adam. I believe Adam was cloned as well as an exact replica of the Father. And that my friend is the answer to the Adam-God dilemma that has goofed up the Saints for over 100 years since Brigham. At he time of Brigham and Joseph cloning was not known. It is now and its a very simple concept. Brigham was right that Adam was God the father. His body was the exact replica.
ReplyDeleteSorry Del for getting of the subject but this is something that ought to be understood. There was no previous earth, and many believe that false doctrine.
Perhaps you might find the following of interest. It was written by the First Presidency in 1909 in response to the growing opinions of the time regarding the Origin of Man.
ReplyDeleteAdam, our first progenitor, “the first man,” was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a “living soul.” The doctrine of the preexistence—revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days—pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man’s origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.
It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34). and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.
True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.
Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist coeternally with Himself. He formed every plant that grows and every animal that breathes, each after its own kind, spiritually and temporally—“that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal, and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant, but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its “distinct order or sphere,” and will enjoy “eternal felicity.” That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (see D&C 77:3).
Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.
Joseph F. Smith
John R. Winder
Anthon H. Lund
First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
November 1909