Embedding Uniformitarianism into World History

And I’m sure all the talk about geology and the age of the earth in the last blog may have weaned out some who find it difficult to follow the connective tissue among the various themes and ideas we’ve been exploring.

However, for those who’ve stuck with it, I think the discovery of what one man, in particular, had to do with where we’ve wound up in culture today will be fascinating indeed. And that man’s name was Charles Lyell. And who exactly was he? Well, according to the Brittanica website,

Charles Lyell . . . was a Scottish geologist largely responsible for the general acceptance of the view that all features of the Earth’s surface are produced by physical, chemical, and biological processes through long periods of geological time. The concept was called uniformitarianism (initially set forth by James Hutton). Lyell’s achievements laid the foundations for evolutionary biology as well as for an understanding of the Earth’s development. He was knighted in 1848.1

Indeed, as mentioned in our last article, Lyell became to geology and the promotion of deep time what Charles Darwin is now to biology and the promotion of the story of evolution.

And like the term natural selection has been inescapably pinned to practically any discussion of Darwin, the concept of uniformitarianism has been similarly assigned to Lyell, even though (just like Darwin’s lack of originality) he wasn’t the one who coined either the term or developed the concept, as the Britannica article I just referenced goes on to explain.

Uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’s geologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology.

When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832, the prevailing view (called catastrophism) was that Earth had originated through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood. In contrast to catastrophism, uniformitarianism postulates that phenomena displayed in rocks may be entirely accounted for by geologic processes that continue to operate—in other words, the present is the key to the past.2

We can see here they describe how uniformitarianism became “fundamental to geologic thinking . . . in contrast to catastrophism.” That is, slow and steady processes over millions of years explain the majority of rock layers found all over the world instead of the belief that a giant catastrophic flood could account for them.

And this had been the case up until recently, although you may be surprised to see how drastically that has changed now, but, more on that later.

To segue into our deeper exploration of who Charles Lyell was and what his motivations were, once again, we’ll ask, was the scientific evidence for uniformitarian conclusions regarding millions of years of deep time just so obvious that people like Lyell were able to come to that conclusion in an unbiased fashion?

Well, let’s look at several quotes from Lyell to discover more.

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that “for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence.”3

Here we see Lyell’s a priori dismissal of Scripture as the starting point of how he believed any study of earth history should be performed.

Here we see Lyell’s a priori dismissal of Scripture as the starting point of how he believed any study of earth history should be performed. Sound familiar? As a matter of fact, he was very familiar with what the Bible said in regard to Noah’s flood and admitted that his desire was to see it overturned.

I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.4

Now I am not saying that Hutton, Lyell, or any of the other men I mentioned earlier did not have scientific evidence they would have pointed to in order to justify their belief in long ages.

Whether discussing volcanic activity, the propositions for the creation of hills and valleys, or interpretations of the rock strata itself, many methods and explanations were proposed as proofs of long ages. What I’m pointing out is that Lyell began with a presupposition—that the Bible’s history was wrong—and then interpreted the facts in geology from that viewpoint.

Reading through the documents now available, such as the many letters he sent to his more liberal-minded friends, can be a bit tedious because the Victorian verbiage they were penned in sounds a little antiquated to modern ears.

But here we see Lyell discussing “the Mosaic geology,” which is a direct reference to the catastrophic event of Noah’s flood found in Genesis—one of the first five books in the Bible attributed to Moses.

The other subtlety to note is the strategic manner by which Lyell operated, which is easy to perceive in his writings and easier to understand considering his official profession.

Lyell was highly intelligent and a professional lawyer. He knew the lay of the land regarding the highly Christianized culture of his day and what lines were more dangerous to cross than others when introducing ideas in contradiction to the Bible and the church.

Notice how he recommends to his friend to simply reference his scientific research, try not to cause offense, and then “point the moral,” which apparently was the conclusion that the Bible’s history regarding the great flood was incorrect.

Unlike many other naturalistic influencers who were more public in their movements, Lyell played a much more strategic and behind-the-scenes role. He was eventually able to discredit the history in the Bible by focusing on what many deemed inoffensive “scientific” arguments in the field of geology when he did come forward.

Charles Darwin himself was greatly influenced by Lyell, and the two eventually became friends and frequently corresponded later in their respective careers. Darwin first met his uniformitarian ideas while reading Lyell’s Principles of Geology on his defining five-year voyage aboard the Beagle where he supposedly “discovered” the story of evolution.

The deep-time spectacles Charles had donned while reading Lyell’s work caused him to speculate what effects long ages might have upon the biology of living organisms. In effect, it supplied his imagination with the required millions-of-years landscape that evolution demands.

So he knew how powerful and influential Lyell’s ideas could be conceptually. He also recognized how effective and damaging Lyell’s overall strategy (in promoting uniformitarian thought versus biblical history) was and mentioned it to his son George in a letter he wrote to him.

Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise. . . . I have lately read . . . that direct attacks on Christianity . . . produce little permanent effect; real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.5

Here we can see Lyell’s true motivation—to damage and diminish Christianity. This was a goal that Darwin willingly supported, calling such attacks against it “real good.”6

In a letter to Thomas Huxley, Charles thanked his friend and described their cooperative efforts this way: “My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e. the devil’s Gospel.”7

Having originally trained in theology, “Darwin [undoubtedly] knew what the story of evolution meant in relation to the Bible’s clear teaching.”8 Far from supporting belief in the metanarrative of Scripture detailing why all people need Christ as Lord and Savior, the grand story of evolution ultimately teaches we are simply evolved animals, there is no creator God, and that when we die, there will be no judgment for anything we have done.

This is only “good news” in any sense for those who wish to justify their sin and avoid judgment when they die. “It was an alternative ‘gospel’—the devil’s gospel.”9 As Darwin mentioned to his son, Lyell’s writings are rife with the acknowledgment of wanting to subvert the church.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the [Quarterly Review] is open to you.10

Here we see Lyell encouraging his friend and fellow geologist Poulett Scrope to publish some of his work in The Quarterly Review (a popular publication of the day), and again, his shrewd tactics are on full display.

He begins by reminding his fellow “sinner” and friend not to irritate, insult the church writings, or lord these ideas being expressed over them, but to work with the more liberal-minded theologians within the church to help overthrow the more conservative Bible defenders (what he refers to here with the outmoded phrase “physico-theologians”11).

These theologians, of course, would be much more likely to detect the negative theological outworking of undermining the Genesis creation account and Noah’s flood as being true history.

However, he tamped down resistance to these ideas by blunting the effects of their objections through the acceptance of these ideas by many in the church itself. Eventually, Lyell bought him and his friends enough time to have the idea of uniformitarianism established as “real science” throughout Western academia.

As discussed in our last article, this is what broke the back of biblical authority in the West—the introduction that the Bible could not be trusted as plainly written because “science” had disproved its historical accounts. In effect, it was just as Lyell had hoped and predicted: “If we don’t irritate . . . we shall carry all with us.”12

Lyell’s expressed plan to “free the science [of geology] from Moses”13 had succeeded wildly. By popularizing the concept of uniformitarianism, he overthrew belief in the trustworthiness of Moses’ writings involving Noah’s flood and a recent six-day creation.

Tragically, this was largely accomplished by a man who is now often mocked and a concept that has been laughed at and dismissed by many evolution-believing geologists today.

Tragically, this was largely accomplished by a man who is now often mocked and a concept that has been laughed at and dismissed by many evolution-believing geologists today. Why? Because Lyell’s ideas were largely conceptual, not scientific in the true sense, and simply never made any sense whatsoever, in light of much of the observable evidence in geology. Here’s just one example of some modern-day derision, shade, or “trash talk” being brought against Lyell: “Lyell . . . sold geology some snake oil.”14

What? Sir Charles Lyell a snake oil salesman? What pea-brained, religious science denier would have the audacity to say such a thing? What that wasn’t some “creatard” (as I’ve sometimes been called for disagreeing with uniformitarian geology) who said that?

No, that was “no less than Warren D. Allmon (the Director of the Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, New York, and Hunter R. Rawlings III Professor of Paleontology in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University) that made this rather unflattering comment about Lyell and his uniformitarian methodology.”15 And here’s their explanation why.

He convinced geologists that . . . all past processes acted at essentially their current rates (that is, those observed in historical time). This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than that they were not gradual.16

Whoa, whoa, whoa! What is this “positive evidence” for catastrophism they could possibly be talking about? And how could Mr. Lyell not have known about it?

Join us for Part 8 where we will show how and why yesteryear’s mechanism for the promotion of the concept of “millions of years” (uniformitarianism) has been examined, admitted as illegitimate, and discarded by many modern geoscientists. In Part 8, I’ll continue to show how the promotion of the story of evolution and its required long-age paradigm has been severely detrimental to Western culture.