Biblical Catastrophism and Geology
By Henry M.
Morris, Ph.D.
Theories of cataslrophism in geological interpretation are not new.
Prior to the time of Sir
Charles Lyell, scientists generally believed that most geoological formations must be attributed
to great physical catastrophes or revolutions. Lyell, however, taught that these
phenomena could be explained by the ordinary
processes of nature, acting over vast expanses of geological time. This
is his "principle of uniformitarianism," now almost universally accepted as the foundational
principle of modern historical
geology.
Profoundly influenced by Lyell's
theories, Charles Darwin soon published
his theory
of evolution by natural selection. The supposed paleontological
record of the evolutionary history of life on earth, together
with the principle of uniformity, now constitutes the interpretive framework within which all data of historical geology are supposed to be explained. Furthermore, this philosophy
of evolutionary
uniformitarianism now serves also as
the interpretive framework in the
social sciences and economics, and
even in the study of religion itself.
Thus a superstructure of gigantic size has been erected on the Lyellian-Darwinian foundation.
However, catastrophism is not dead. The inadequacies of a
thorough-going uniformitarianism have
become increasingly obvious in recent years, and such quasi-catastrophist concepts as wandering continents, shifting poles,
slipping crusts, meteoritic and cometary collisions, etc., are appearing more and
more frequently in geological literature. It is, in fact, generally recognized that even
the ordinary fossiliferous depposits of the sedimentary rocks must
often have at least a semi-catastrophist basis, since
the process of fossilization usually requires rather rapid burial, under
conditions seldom encountered in the modern world. Most geological processes
of the present seem to be
non-catastrophic in nature, but catastrophes of some sort seem necessary to
explain many of the earth's geological
formations. Application of Occam's Razor
(the principle that the minimum number of hypotheses for possible explanation of phenomena should be
employed) suggests that just one or
a few great catastrophes would be more reasonable as an explanation than would
be a great number of such events.
The above considerations lead to the suggestion that a return to Biblical
Catastrophism as the interpretive framework for historical geology is
well worth considering at this time.
Modern studies in Biblical archaeology have
demonstrated that the Bible is
amazingly reliable in its historical sections, despite over a hundred
years of propaganda to the contrary.
Pious veneration of the Bible for
its "spiritual values" is hardly consistent with a rejection
of its scientific and historical
teachings, for if the latter cannot be trusted — that is, statements
which are susceptible to actual human investigation and proof— thhen how can its "spiritual"
teachings, which are not susceptible of proof, be trusted?
And
the Bible does have a great deal to say about the early history of the earth and the universe, not only in the book of
Genesis, but throughout both Old and New Testaments.
If the Bible is actually what its writers
univocally claim it to be — and what
Jesus Christ and His apostles accepted and taught it to be — then it is really and truly the inspired Word of God, and its teachings
concerning Creation and other events of early history are not legends but actual facts of
history. If one simply assumes this as an act of faith, and makes his
deductions on that basis, he soon finds that the Bible presents a perfectly
consistent and harmonious account of earth history, with which it is possible
to harmonize all the data of historical geology, as well as pertinent data in
other fields.
The objection that such a presupposition will necessarily color the
conclusions derived from it is, of course, valid. On the other hand, it should
be recognized that evolutionary interpretations also are derived from definite
presuppositions. It is nothing but pure assumption that makes a man suppose he
must interpret all data within a naturalistic, uniformitarian mold. Therefore,
it is not only legitimate but also highly important that the inferences based
on the Biblical presuppositions also be seriously considered and evaluated.
The major elements of the Biblical framework, within which all
data should be organized, are three great recorded facts of history. These
events are: (1) the Creation; (2) the Fall; and (3) the Flood.
The fact of a real Creation, out of nothing, is fundamental to any
form of theism and especially to Christian theism. For if anything at all has
really been "created," that substance must have been created
with an "appearance of age." On the assumption of uniformity, on the
other hand, it would always be possible to imagine some sort of evolutionary
history for even the simplest created substance. Denial of the possibility of
the creation of "apparent age" amounts to denial of the possibility
of any genuine creation and thus is essentially atheism.
Another intensely significant fact concerning Creation is that it
was accomplished by processes no longer in operation. According to the Bible,
all things were created in six days, following which "God ended his
work which he had made" (Gen. 2:2). The Sabbath was then instituted in
commemoration of God's completed work of Creation. Therefore the
physical processes which we can now study belong to an entirely different order
of things and can give us no clue whatever to the history of the Creation
period; this latter history can only be known through divine revelation. This
conclusion is strongly confirmed scientifically by the law of energy
conservation, the first law of thermodynamics. This is the most firmly
established of all scientific laws and is really the basic principle upon which
all modern science is really grounded. Energy, in the fullest sense, includes
everything in the physical and biological universe, and this law essentially
affirms that no creation of energy is now taking place. Such creation must
therefore have been an event of the past, and this is exactly what Scripture
teaches.
To some extent, therefore, the whole world was created at some
time in the past, by processes unknown to us, with an "appearance of age."
This fact must be given full consideration in the construction of a geological
history or the use of a geological chronometer. For instance, the primeval
ocean may already have been saline, radioactive minerals may already have
contained daughter elements, light from distant stars may have been visible on
the earth at the instant of their creation, and so on, even as Adam was created
as a full-grown man.
The second basic fact around which historical data must be
organized is that of the Curse. According to the revelation given by God, the
original Creation was, in every respect, "very good" (Gen. 1:31).
There was nothing out of balance, no disharmony, no suffering, no struggle and,
above all, no death in the world. According to the Apostle Paul, "by man came
death" (I Cor. 15:21). When man sinned, God pronounced a Curse, not only
on man but also on his whole dominion, the earth and everything in it. This
Curse primarily involves the principle of decay and death. The "whole
creation" is now in the " of corruption" (that is,
"decay"), according to Romans 8:21-22. There is, everywhere, a
natural tendency toward disintegration and ultimate death.
The Biblical doctrine is, of course, firmly supported by the second
law of thermodynamics. This law which, like the first law, is as strongly
proved as any fact of science, states that, in any closed system, there is a
natural increase of disorder and disorganization. The energy (or information,
or order) of the system tends to become less available or useful or organized.
Everything tends to wear out, to grow old, to run down, and finally to approach
a state of death. Obviously this law flatly contradicts the notion of
evolution, which assumes that everything naturally tends to become more orderly
and highly organized.
But the most significant of these facts, from the standpoint of
historical geology, is that there could have been no suffering or struggle or
death in the world until after man had sinned. Consequently, the fossils of all
formerly living animals now found in the earth's sedimentary rocks must be
dated subsequently to this event, the Fall of Man.
This leads to the third basic fact in the Biblical framework. If
the great thicknesses of fossil-bearing strata have been deposited only after
man's fall, then nothing less than catastrophic deposition can possibly
account for most of them. The Bible clearly describes this Catastrophe, and we
now know it as the Genesis flood or as the Great Deluge in the days of Noah.
According to the record, it was because of the utterly and
hopelessly wicked condition into which the earth's original peoples had
degenerated that God sent a cataclysmic Deluge to "destroy man with the
earth" (Gen. 6:13). This event is described in detail in Genesis 6 through
9 and is referred to many times in other parts of the Bible and by Jesus Christ
Himself. It is also recorded, in more or less incomplete and distorted fashion,
in the legends of hundreds of peoples all over the world.
According to the Apostle Peter, "the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). As described in the
Bible, the flood-water covered the entire globe for a year and was immensely
destructive in effect. All of the processes of sedimentation, volcanism,
tectonics, fossilization, etc., were extremely active during this period. No
true scheme of historical geology could possibly be erected without full
consideration of the tremendous geologic records that must necessarily have
been inscribed in the earth's crust by this event.
Acceptance of this Biblical framework of interpretation would have
very little effect on the organization and use of the vast bulk of accumulated
geologic data and methodology. The disciplines of mineralogy, petrology,
hydrology, structural geology, petroleum geology, economic geology, etc., would
be very little affected, in any practical way, by the problem of whether the
data of historical geology should be organized in terms of evolutionary
uniformitarianism or in terms of Biblical Creationism and Catastrophism.
There are essentially only two significant points where changes in
interpretation would be necessitated, but these are quite important. In the
first place, the principle of uniformity must be modified sufficiently to
accommodate the three great discontinuities of Creation, the Fall, and the
Flood. In the second place, the theory of evolution must be abandoned. Although
these two concepts are pure hypotheses, which have never been verified, they of
course have the status of Sacred Cows, and one can question their universal
validity only at the risk of being charged with medieval ignorance and
prejudice. Nevertheless, their validity has never been demonstrated and they
are simply accepted as Articles of Faith. In fact, there is an abundance of
scientific evidence that they are not valid. Rather than being hindered by
their rejection, it is very likely that historical geology would be greatly
benefited by release from their shackles.
With reference to uniformity, it has already been noted that this
principle has proved inadequate in numerous areas, so that a
quasi-catastrophism is already quite prominent in geologic interpretation.
There are many very important unsolved problems in geology and it is likely
that their solution has been delayed by an implicit reliance on uniformity.
Typical of these important unsolved problems are: (1) the cause of
mountain-building; (2) the origin of geosynclines; (3) the origin of petroleum;
(4) the cause of continental glaciations; (5) the mechanics of overthrusting;
(6) the cause of peneplains; (7) the cause of world-wide warm climates; (8) the
nature of volcanism productive of vast volcanic terrains; (9) the nature of
continental uplift processes; (10) the origin of mineral deposits; (11) the
nature of metamorphism; (12) the origin of saline deposits; (13) the nature of
granitization; (14) the origin of coal measures; and so on and on. Not one of
the above phenomena has yet been adequately explained in terms of present processes,
and this is true of an innumerable variety of other important geological
phenomena as well. Uniformity is therefore entirely undeserving of its
sacrosanct position in geological interpretation. On the other hand, all of the
above phenomena lend themselves quite readily to interpretation in terms of the
Creation-Catastrophe framework.
The concept of evolution is even more vulnerable than that of
uniformity. As already seen, it is squarely contradicted by the second law of
thermodynamics. In fact, most of the evidences commonly cited for evolution are
in reality evidences of deterioration! For example, the very mechanism believed
to cause evolution, that of genetic mutations, is actually a mechanism of
disorganization. A mutation results when something causes a sudden and random
change in the genetic structure of the germ cell. Such changes, except possibly
in such rare accidental circumstances as to be negligible, result in a decrease
of order in the germ cell and therefore in some definite harm to the creature
experiencing it. Natural selection then acts to weed out those creatures
experiencing mutations, and thus to preserve the previous form of the species.
If any permanent change occurs in the natural state, it almost certainly must
be a deterioration of the species (witness the evidence of vestigial organs,
and the evidence that most modern animals are represented in the fossil record
by larger and stronger forms than are now living).
The only evidence for evolution carrying any real weight is that
afforded by the fossil record itself, which presumably shows a gradual increase
of variety and complexity of organisms with the advance of geologic time. Thus
the data of historical geology, especially that of paleontology, are the only
evidences for evolution, and this is why the study of historical geology has
assumed such great importance. But in view of the fact that all true scientific
law, as well as the testimony of Scripture, negates the very possibility of
true evolution, it is evident that this evidence from paleontology has somehow been
misunderstood.
In fact, a very serious case of circular reasoning seems to be
present here. The Geologic Column has essentially been built up on the basis of
the fossil dates, interpreted on the assumption of evolution. Rocks containing
simple fossils are called old and those with complex fossils are called young.
The idealized, 100-mile thick, geologic column does not actually exist anywhere
in the world, but has been constructed by superposition of formations from many
areas, and the principle used in its erection has been that of evolution.
Consequently, the one real proof of evolution has been developed on the basis
of the assumption of evolution! This is admittedly an oversimplification of the
case, but it is nevertheless fundamentally the correct situation.
In any locality, it is true that there usually seems to be an
increase in complexity of the contained fossils with increasing elevation, and
also that the fossil assemblages tend to occur in more or less distinct zones.
The accepted system of subdivision of the geologic column is quite useful as a
taxonomic device, whether or not it has any real meaning as an evolutionary
series. Even at best, however, there are many omissions and inversions found at
specific localities, and these have to be explained away by such extreme
devices as epochs of erosion, overthrusts, etc. It
is quite possible, on the other hand, to explain these same data equally well
or better in terms of the Deluge. The Biblical descriptions of the Flood
indicate a tremendous complex of events occurring during the Flood year —
worldwide torrential rains, tremendous erosion, worldwide tectonic and volcanic
upheavals, violent windstorms, gigantic waves and tsunamis, etc., as well as
great destruction of all forms of life, followed necessarily by extensive
burials in great "graveyards" of future fossil deposits. An infinite
variety of depositional characteristics could be postulated at various times and
places during the Deluge, often violent but also often relatively quiescent. In
general, however, the depositional sequences of fossils, in any one vertical
column, would tend to be from simple to complex, with increase in elevation.
This order is that of: (1) increasing elevation of habitat — an ecological
zonation; (2) increasing resistance to settling, because of more complex
boundary geometry and lesser specific gravity; and (3) increasing size and
mobility, with consequent increasing ability to postpone inundation and burial
by the rising Flood waters. These sequences would of course be statistical,
rather than absolute, and would be subject to many exceptions, but they would
certainly represent the dominant trends. And all of this is exactly what is
found in the strata, even though it has been misinterpreted to teach
evolution! Thus, the rejection of
evolution and of absolute uniformity would not only be quite possible but would
probably also be potentially of great value in further geologic research. As
one potentially of great value in further geologic research. As one example of
how the Biblical framework could solve a perplexing geologic problem, consider
the question of worldwide climatic change. The Bible indicates that there
existed before the Flood a vast blanket of water vapor around the earth. Among
other things, this thermal canopy would have produced just such a universal
warm, pleasant climate as is indicated for most of the systems of the geologic
column. Its precipitation not only was one of the two main causes of the Flood
(the other was the world-wide breakup of the "fountains of the great
deep," which were probably vast subterranean waters and magmas previously
restrained under great pressure below the crust), but also would have led to a
sudden chilling of the climate and resultant continental glaciations.
If all of this were simply a question of geology and its
interpretation, there would be little reason for anyone to press for such a
radical shift in orientation as here proposed. Even if this were all, however,
the possibility of an alternative type of scientific generalization would at
least warrant investigation, strictly from the scientific standpoint.
However, there is much more at stake here than simply a matter of
geologic interpretation. The philosophy of evolutionary uniformitarianism has
penetrated very deeply into nearly every aspect of human life. Evolution has
become fundamental in the treatment of psychology, of sociology, political
science, economics, philosophy
— even religion. It is the cornerstone of Dewey's educational
philosophy. Through Nietzsche's adoption and application of Darwinism,
evolution became eventually the quasi-scientific basis of m and Nazism.
Even more seriously, Karl Marx adapted and extended the concept of evolution in
developing the Communistic system, and modern Communism today is grounded
squarely on the theory of evolution. This is true, in fact, for socialism in
all its forms, as well as for every other anti-Christian system of the present
day.
Jesus said: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit"
(Matthew 7:18). The modern fruit of the evolutionary philosophy — Communism,
Nazism, progressive educationism, materialism, existentialism, Freudianism,
behaviourism, and the rest
— warrants a very serious and critical look at the nature of the
tree itself.
Modern geologists can render a uniquely important service to
mankind by re-examining, critically, the paleontological foundation on which
rests this gigantic structure of evolution and its bitter fruits. A renewed
recognition of the reality of Creation and the sovereignty of the Creator, in
the history of the earth and in the lives of men, could serve a mighty
evangelistic and purifying purpose in the world, in these latter days.
Previous Article Summer 2005 Front Page Next Article