Saturday, February 8, 2014

Velikovsky's Case for Catastrophism

Immanuel Velikovsky

Review:
     Earth in Upheaval
     Immanuel Velikovsky
     Abacus, 1973 (1st Ed., 1955)
     263 pp., pb.

     Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was one of the most controversial figures in modern geology.  A Russian Jew by birth, a psychiatrist by profession, and an ardent Zionist, he set out to rebut Sigmund Freud's book Moses and Monotheism, in which Freud argued that the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaton was the source for Jewish monotheism.  Velikovsky set out to prove that the Exodus was a real historical event.  In order to do so, however, he had to challenge widely accepted notions about archaeology, geology and astronomy.
      Earth in Upheaval, first published in 1955, was Velikovsky's effort to deal with the geological evidence.  In it he challenged the uniformitarian assumptions of the day, and argued the case for a form of catastrophism.  Unlike Henry M. Morris, however, who tried to tie all of the evidence to a single catastrophe, the Genesis Flood, Velikovsky argued for multiple catastrophes, including one  that he said took place at the time of the Exodus, which he placed at ca. 1400-1300 B.C.
     Velikovsky's argument throughout the book is that there is ample evidence for multiple catastrophes throughout the earth's history for which uniformitarianism has no adequate explanation.  He cites the example of several caves in northern England and Wales which are now hundreds of feet above sea level and contain the bones of numerous species of animals including, interestingly, hippopotami, which are normally found in tropical climates.  How, one might ask, did hippos make their way to England?
     Sir Charles Lyell, the father of uniformitarianism, speculated that during the summertime hippopotami would swim northward along the Mediterranean coast, with others making their way up rivers in Spain and France.  They would then, presumably, make the return trip to Africa before the winter set in.
     Velikovsky could barely contain his laughter.  "Hippopotami not only travelled during the summer nights to England and Wales, but also climbed the hills to die peacefully among other animals in the caves, and the ice, approaching softly, tenderly spread little pebbles over the travelers resting in peace, and the land with its hills and caverns in a slow lullaby movement covered them with rosy sand" (p.27).
     The existence of fossils themselves makes any uniformitarian explanation unlikely.  "The explanation of the origin of fossils by the theory of uniformity and evolution contradicts the fundamental principle of these theories: Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present.  Today no fossils are formed" (p. 194).
     Velikovsky, however, did not reject evolution.  He argued, in fact, that only catastrophism can adequately explain evolution.  If evolution proceeds along a path of slow, gradual progress the formation of new species would be practically impossible.  Most randomly occurring mutations would prove useless and be eliminated by natural selection.  In order for a new species to come into existence, a large number of beneficial mutations would have to occur all at once, or at least within a very short time span.  This, Velikovsky contended, could only happen during a geological catastrophe, when groups of organisms are exposed simultaneously to significant amounts of radiation.
     Nevertheless, Velikovsky's theory of multiple catastrophes faces daunting challenges.  While the physical evidence for catastrophes is abundant and obvious, how does one sort out the evidence chronologically in a multiple event scenario?  Velikovsly wanted to prove that the Exodus was a real historical event.  But much of the evidence he discusses can be placed in the Ice Ages, long before the Exodus, and can probably be connected with what is now generally knows as "the Quaternary Extinction Event," which saw the extinction of a number of species of large mammals.  Might this not rather be connected with the Flood?
     And then there is the problem of causality.  A catastrophist must argue that some cause must have operated in the past that is not normally present today.  But how can one identify the cause of a given catastrophe?
     It is at this point that we come up against the problem that faces anyone who engages in historical geology or historical biology.  While we can see the physical effects of past events, we cannot observe directly the events themselves, much less what caused them.  All we can do is to speculate about what might have happened.  What caused the Ice Ages?  What caused the numerous mammoths to freeze with fresh food still in their mouths?  In some cases we can point to a likely cause, such as the asteroid that crashed into the Yucatan Peninsula and cause the Cretaceous - Paleogene Extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs.  In other cases we can rule out a hypothesis as being physically impossible.  Velikovsky himself fell prey to this problem.  He tried to explain various catastrophes in terms of changes in the orbits of several planets, which would violate the laws of physics!  But in many cases the geologist is working with fragmentary evidence, and can only speculate about the cause of a given event.  There is no way to test the hypothesis.
     The challenge for the Christian believer is that even critics of uniformitarianism agree that there were successive geological ages before the appearance of human beings upon the earth.  How long did these ages last?  How old is the earth?  Does it really matter from a theological point of view?  As Velikovsky put it:
     "I do not see why to a truly religious mind a small and short-lived universe is better proof of
      its having been devised by an absolute intelligence.  Neither do I see how by removing many
      unresolved problems in geology to very remote ages we contribute to their solution or elucidate
      their enigmatic nature" (p. 183).
Let it suffice that there is ample evidence in nature for both design and catastrophe.


4 comments:

  1. Unlike Henry M. Morris, however, who tried to tie all of the evidence to a single catastrophe, the Genesis Flood, Velikovsky argued for multiple catastrophes, including one that he said took place at the time of the Exodus, which he placed at ca. 1400-1300 B.C.

    Well, at least one of them was wrong. Which one do you think was wrong (or were both wrong)?

    Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no fossils are formed.

    What magically stops fossils from being formed?
    What has changed about physics or chemistry or geology?

    "Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no coal deposits are formed."
    "Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no continents are formed."
    "Nothing took place in the past that does not take place in the present. Today no animals or plants die and have their remains get protected from rot by their environment."

    See?
    It's silly.

    .While we can see the physical effects of past events, we cannot observe directly the events themselves, much less what caused them. All we can do is to speculate

    Scientists don't speculate. They make predictions.
    That's how we find those little things in life like... the orbit of Pluto or oil.

    "While we can see the physical effects of the shooting, we cannot observe directly the flying bullets and blood splatter events themselves, much less the gunman that caused them. All we can do is to speculate..."

    No.
    Forensic science is not based on "speculation".
    No science works that way.

    If you are shot and killed by some psycho, the police will not just scratch their heads and give up given that the killer was smart enough to leave no living witnesses. They can use forensics to learn a great deal about the killing. Enough to convict someone in a court of law and bring your killer to justice.
    Even if you survive the shooting to testify, your personal eye witness testimony will be measured up against the physical evidence. If your story doesn't gel with the physical evidence, then you are in trouble.

    What caused the numerous mammoths to freeze with fresh food still in their mouths?

    Where did you get this story from? Do some basci fact checking. If the source you are using is dodgy then don't use it. Get a better one that meets my minimum standards.

    In other cases we can rule out a hypothesis as being physically impossible.

    Either you can or you cannot. You can't have it both ways. Speculation doesn't enter into it. Either you are going to go with the science or you are going to bottom feed for something that tells you what you want to hear.

    Does it really matter from a theological point of view?

    Does the truth and being in sync with reality matter to you?

    Let it suffice that there is ample evidence in nature for both design and catastrophe.

    You've spent an awful lot of time trying to say nothing at all. That may "suffice" for you but not for others that actually want answers.

    How old is the earth?

    Well?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scientists don't speculate? Come now! What do you think theoretical science is?
    The fact of the matter is that you cannot apply the scientific method to a prehistoric event. By definition it is not observable. In that sense evolution is not "science." It has never been directly observed, and it has never been tested under controlled conditions.
    You pointed to the fact that coal deposits and continents are not being formed to today -- which is precisely the point that both Morris and Velikovsky were trying to make. The basic premise of Uniformitarianism is obviously not true.
    As for who was right or wrong, Velikovsky or Morris, both were wrong in some areas. What is of special interest to me, however, is that Velikovsky was apparently right about there being multiple catastrophes.
    Morris has an interesting discussion in his book about the development of modern geology. He points out that in the late 18th Century geologists began to realize that there layers upon layers of sedimentary rock, and that they had to have been laid down over a span of time. Georges Couvier, in particular, posited multiple catastrophes, the last of which Noah's flood. It was an English geologist, William Buckland, who found a cave in Yorkshire, England, that contained the crushed skeletons of a large number of various species of animals, and concluded that they must have been fleeing from, and eventually crushed by, a gigantic tidal wave. Charles Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism. building on the prior work of James Hutton. According to Morris, Buckland eventually recanted his position.
    But Couvier was looking at the evidence as it actually exists, and drew two important conclusions: 1) all those strata of sedimentary rock could not have been created by a single catastrophe lasting less than a year, and 2) the evidence cannot be accouinted for simply by processes at work today. On both of these points I think he was absolutely right.
    The problem, then, with Morris brand of "Young Earth" creationism is that it wants to shrink the entire geological column into a single event, which is physically impossible. Here in northern Pennsylvania the Marcellus Shale is a mile underground, and it is hard to imagine a mile of sediment being laid down in a single flood.
    The other interesting thing about the cave in Yorkshire is that there are no remains of dinosaurs there - the species represented are mostly mammals, what we would normally think of as Pleistocene fauna. That suggests that the catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs had to have been earlier than the one that wiped out the large mammals. This means that we are talking about at least two extinction events, with Noah's flood being associated with the latter one, just as Couvier had suggested.
    My conclusion, based solely on the evidence? The appearance of design is evidence of design; the appearance of age is evidence of age; the appearance of catastrophe is evidence of catastrophe.
    Can we prove any of it conclusively? Not unless you are a LOT older than I am!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scientists don't speculate? Come now! What do you think theoretical science is?

    Bob, you need to stop arguing like this.
    Don't tell your readership what science really is. It's not your opinion that matters. Science=//=speculation.
    This is something that anyone can find out for themselves.

    You can choose to create a strawman but that only will fool the foolish.
    You should not be aiming so low.

    Nor should you just ignore the other person's argument. Yet you do this all the time.
    Let's try again.
    Only this time, focus. Try to communicate with me as an adult.

    The fact of the matter is that you cannot apply the scientific method to a prehistoric event.

    Yes, you can.
    It happens all the time.
    Oil, remember?
    We use science to look into the past and also the future.
    It's incredibly useful that way.

    By definition it is not observable. In that sense evolution is not "science." It has never been directly observed, and it has never been tested under controlled conditions.

    Not according to the scientists.
    Seriously, you have to stop arguing this way. You cannot expect to be treated as an adult if you are just going to ignore reality. There is no reason why a casual observer should just go along with your say-so.
    Biology does not magically somehow stop being science just because you close your eyes and tap your red shoes three times.

    You pointed to the fact that coal deposits and continents are not being formed to today...

    (...facepalm...)

    This is a good example of why it's so very hard to talk to you. You have not thought this through. Coal does not "just happen". It got there through basic biology and physics and geology. Those factors still exist today.
    Perhaps an easier example would be continents forming.
    The plates of the Earth are moving.
    Very slowly.
    Yet they move. Now. They collide with each other. Now. Some slide up and some slide down. Now.
    Very slowly, it's true. Very, very, VERY slowly. Yet we can measure it and predict it and see where it was before.
    The continents we know on a map are changing. They never stop changing. They can't. The same process that made them what they are right now did not just go away and take a permanent holiday. That process is ongoing.

    The same is true for fossils. They did not happen by magic.
    The way biology works and geology and chemistry etc is still the same today.
    A fly can still be smothered and trapped in tree sap.
    A bird or worm can still be buried by volcanic ash.
    A cow can still sink into a tar pit etc.

    Fossils happen. They have different ages covering a very, very broad spectrum of time. There was no one single event for them all. The plants and animals that became fossils are from all sorts of different eco-systems unconnected to each other by time or space.
    Yet, one way or another, they became fossils.
    The whole fossil making process never stopped.
    Nobody flicked a switch and and went "OK, it's 1813. That's enough. Shut down the foundry."
    Didn't happen.

    As for who was right or wrong, Velikovsky or Morris, both were wrong in some areas.

    They can't both be right. They contradict each other. You don't seem to be very comfortable giving your conclusion based on your extensive reading.

    On both of these points I think he was absolutely right.

    You have no way of assessing his claim. It's just pot luck and idle speculation.
    Either you accept the scientific process or you reject it.
    You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Can we prove any of it conclusively? Not unless you are a LOT older than I am!

    The same rigour that allows scientists to trace ancestry or find resources or catch criminals or plot orbitst is the same. Reject one and you reject them all.
    My conclusion, based solely on the evidence? The appearance of design is evidence of design

    You are very busy not saying anything.
    If you are going to give a conclusion, then give one. Don't play a pea-and-shell game. Spell it out.
    How old is the earth?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps this will help. Re-defining science to suit yourself doesn't work. If you have to play word games then you've already lost.

    ReplyDelete