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.

Henry Morris and the Lewis Overthrust

Most mainstream geologists today probably equate Young Earth Creationism (YEC) with “junk science,” as opposed to real science, which is supposed to be based on hard evidence.  But the fact of the matter is that most of Henry M. Morris’ seminal book The Genesis Flood, which he coauthored with biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb, is devoted to a discussion of the evidence.  His work should not be simply dismissed by critics; they should refute it, if they can.

            Morris was primarily concerned with attacking geological Uniformitarianism and building the case for Catastrophism as an alternative.  More specifically, he advocated “Young Earth” Creationism, contending that most fossiliferous rock strata can be tied to a single geological event, the world-side deluge  recorded in the Book of Genesis in the Bible.  Morris’ argument is that Uniformitarianism cannot explain much of the evidence, which actually points in the direction of some form of Catastrophism.

            How well did Morris establish his case?  Let us look at one particular piece of evidence, the Lewis Overthrust in Montana, USA and Alberta, Canada.  The Lewis Overthrust in an example of a formation in which the supposedly older rocks are on the top and the younger ones on the bottom.  Morris cites this as evidence that the rock strata are out of chronological sequence, thus disturbing the argument for evolution from the fossil record.

Chief Mountain, Glacier National Park

            The standard explanation for this formation is that it is an example of an “overthrust,” a case in which a large wedge of rock was forced up and over an adjacent layer of rock.  In this case the rock wedge is several miles thick and several hundred miles long, and apparently moved nearly 50 miles eastward.  Morris wondered how such a thing could be possible on this scale.

            “It seems almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks

             really behaving in such a fashion, unless we are ready to accept catastrophism

             of an intensity that makes the Noachian Deluge seem quiescent by comparison!

             Certainly the principle of uniformity is inadequate to account for them.

             Nothing we know of present earth movements – of rock compressive and

             shearing strengths, of the plastic low of rock materials, or other modern

             physical processes – gives any observational basis for believing that such

             things are happening now or ever could have happened, except under extremely

             unusual conditions”  (The Genesis Flood, pp. 180-181).

Morris denied that the characteristic evidence of a fault thrust were present, and maintained that the “overthrust” consists of normal bedding layers, laid down in the order in which they are now found, and thus upsetting the evolutionary timeline.

            The anti-Creationist website TalkOrigins has an article entitled “Thrust faults” in which John G. Solum examines Morris’ argument in detail.  In some ways Solum is unfair in his treatment of Morris, sometimes misrepresenting Morris’ arguments and missing the point Morris was trying to make.  But to his credit he does interact with the evidence and makes some telling criticisms.  In particular he cites evidence to show that the Lewis Overthrust does indeed show evidence of being a genuine fault thrust.   He also criticizes Morris for quoting some of his sources out of context, and notes that Morris misidentified a lock layer in a photograph in Morris’ book (Figure 17 on page 190).  There seems to be little reason to doubt that it is a genuine overthrust.

            Ironically, when Morris how such a massive overthrust could have occurred, he could have answered his own question.   He himself notes at one point that “It is quite true that the entire area . . . gives much evidence of faulting, folding, and general tectonic activity . . . Such activity is to be expected in connection with mountain-uplift processes, whatever the nature or cause of these processes may be” (p. 185).  And that is, indeed, exactly how most geologists now believe is the case. The Lewis Overthrust was formed at the same time as the Rocky Mountains, and this, in turn, was the result of colliding tectonic plates on the west coast of North America.

            But in refuting some of Morris’ evidence, Solum ironically reinforced Morris’ central thesis.  The overthrust is just a part of a much larger system – the entire Rocky Mountains.  If it is true, as Morris said of the overthrust itself, that “It seems almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks  really behaving in such a fashion,” how much more true is it of the entire Rock Mountains?  And if the principle of Uniformity states that “The present is the key to the past,” and that “Rocks formed long ago at the earth’s surface may be understood and explained in accordance with physical processes now operating” (Gilluly, Walter & Woodford, Principles of Geology, p. 18), then how can we account for something on so large a scale?  As Morris put it, “Nothing we know of present earth movements . . . gives any observational basis for believing that such things are happening now.”  “It seems almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks really behaving in such a fashion unless we are ready to accept catastrophism” -- a catastrophism that exceeds even Henry Morris’ imagination!

            
See also:
Morris and Whitcomb Fifty Years Later 

Here's the link to Solum's TalkOrigins article : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/

Morris and Whitcomb Fifty Years Later

Review:
    The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications
    Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr.
    Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970
    489 pp., hardcover

 
    Henry M. Morris is widely regarded as the father of modern Young Earth Creationism (YEC), His landmark study The Genesis Flood, which he coauthored with biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb, and first published in 1961, remains controversial to this day. Francis S. Collins, himself an evangelical Christian, says "For anyone familiar with the scientific evidence, it is almost incomprehensible that the YEC view has achieved such wide support, especially in a country like the United States that claims to be so intellectually advanced and technologically sophisticated" (The Language of God, p. 174). As one might expect, the critique of atheistic evolutionists is even less kind.
    But is Young Earth Creationism really all that ridiculous? It might be worth our while to go back and take a second look at the book that started the controversy. How well do Morris and Whitcomb's arguments hold up fifty years later?

Henry M. Morris (1918-2006)

    Morris and Whitcomb started with the biblical account of the Flood, and then reasoned deductively to determine what the likely geological effects of such a deluge might have been. They then examined the geological evidence and claimed to have found confirmation of their hypothesis. The book is carefully organized and exceptionally well documented.
    The strongest part of their argument is their critique of geological uniformitarianism, the idea that the various strata of sedimentary rock were laid down gradually over long periods of time. They note that the theory is based on a gratuitous assumption, that it cannot adequately account for much of the geological data, and that the evidence in fact points to some form of geological catastrophe. The massive fossil graveyards, and the extensive oil and coal deposits, all point to widespread catastrophic flooding.
    So far, so good. There are, however, some problems, and the authors frankly acknowledge these in the last chapter of the book. Chief among the difficulties are the problems with dating. Among other things scientists use the half-lives of radioactive materials to calculate the age of the earth, and the results thus obtained indicate much longer periods of time than are allowed for in the authors' hypothesis. Morris does his best to counter the evidence, suggesting, among other things, that the rates of radioactive decay might be variable. In the case of Uranium-238, however, this is certainly not true. Interestingly, Morris and Whitcomb never demonstrated from the Bible that a young age for the earth is required.
    Morris could not say for sure what natural causes might have precipitated the Flood. He did argue that a thick water vapor canopy surrounded the earth during antediluvian times, and that something caused the vapor canopy to condensate, causing heavy rainfall. "When finally that 'something' happened, whatever it was – possibly the passage of the earth through a meteorite swarm or the sudden extrusion of large amounts of volcanic dust into the air – the vapor blanket was condensed and precipitated. As the Scripture describes is, 'the flood-gates of heaven were opened,' and torrents of rain fell all around the earth for forty days and forty nights!" (p. 258). What Morris did not know at the time, but we now know, is that just such an event has been identified. It is now believed that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by an asteroid striking the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. The effects are believed to have been similar to those described by Morris. Here again, though, the main problem is dating. Most scientists think that the "K-T Extinction Event" took place some 65 million years ago, whereas the first identifiably human species is not thought to have appeared until only 2 million years ago. If, however, the fossils are young, having been buried quickly in a catastrophic deluge, there might not be an actual discrepancy in dates.
    Morris and Whitcomb researched the subject thoroughly, stated their conclusions carefully, and addressed the problems honestly. Their criticisms of mainstream geology are telling. Even if we cannot agree with all of their conclusions their work should not be dismissed lightly. Science is strengthened, not weakened, by criticism, no matter from what quarter.

 
Added note:
    In light of the recent discussion about global warming Henry Morris' comments on the subject are of interest. As noted above, Morris believed that before the Flood the earth was covered by a thick water vapor canopy, and had a uniformly warm, tropical climate as a result. During the Flood, the vapor canopy precipitated. This, he believed, caused temperatures to drop, bringing on the Ice Age. In the course of the discussion Morris noted that CO₂ levels in the atmosphere effect global temperatures, and made this observation: "The problem of atmospheric contamination by fossil fuels has also come in for consideration, since the burning of coal and oil during the past century has added measurably to the amount of carbon dioxide in the carbon cycle" (p. 373). And he wrote this in 1961! He cited an article by Dr. Gilbert Plass that appeared in Scientific American in 1959. It is certainly something worth thinking about! 

Related posts:
Galileo's Ordeal 
Science and Scripture 
The Age of the Earth:
Here, Here, and  Here.