HOW GEOLOGY TOOK WRONG TURN
Starting in Early to Mid 1800s
(The Failed History of Uniformitarianism)
CONTENTS — FIND IN PAGE
MOST INFLUENTIAL ANTICREATIONISM BEFORE 1900
UPDATE: REACTION TO RELIGIOUS DOGMATISM
INTRO
I’m not a Creationist, but I consider much of Creation Science to be much better than mainstream science. I believe in God as universal love & intelligence and I think miracles are real, but they are God’s “natural” events. Jesus apparently said we can do the miracles that he did. I think the Genesis creation event was possibly of several thousand years duration. Adam was supposedly warned that if he ate of a certain tree in the Garden of Eden he would surely die on that day. Since he didn’t die on the “day” that he ate the fruit, but lived almost a thousand years, it’s possible that “day” meant what God considers a day, which is as a thousand years. Therefore, the 6 days of creation may have amounted to 6,000 years or so. I believe God could do anything miraculously, but He can also do things “naturally”.
In this post, I want to show a history of anticreationism in order to see what led geologists and others to make a wrong turn. Early geologists saw sedimentary rock strata as evidence of Noah’s Flood, but gradually their successors were persuaded away from that sensible view. Luckily, there are now a lot of good Creation Scientists who are helping bring society back to reality regarding the Flood and Creation events etc.
MOST INFLUENTIAL ANTICREATIONISM BEFORE 1900
Several works published before 1900 were highly influential in challenging traditional creationist views (especially views based on a literal interpretation of Genesis) and promoting naturalistic or evolutionary explanations for the origins of life and the Earth. These works were not always "anticreationist" in a hostile sense, but they played major roles in shifting scientific and public opinion away from young-earth creationism. {I’m quoting AI here. I think Creation and the Flood were Natural events, but way faster and more recent than the mainstream thinks. Nature is a miracle itself IMO.}
Most Influential Anticreationism Works Before 1900
1. English Deism (c. 1624-1850)
This developed from Herbert’s rationalist ideas (1624), evolved through the influence of empiricism and Enlightenment thought, and became a movement emphasizing reason, natural religion, and skepticism toward religious authority and supernatural claims1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Deism peaked in influence and declined from 1800-1850, due to rising naturalism, philosophical critiques, religious revivals, and political factors. {I agree that religious authorities are often wrong, but I think the whole universe is a supernatural phenomenon. Nicolas Steno founded Geology in 1669 and early geologists believed in Noah’s Flood.}
2. Higher Criticism and German Biblical Scholarship (c. 1730-1900)
Academic works from German scholars introduced "higher criticism," who were influenced by English Deism, analyzing biblical texts as historical documents rather than literal accounts. This movement influenced both theology and science, encouraging many to see Genesis as allegorical rather than factual. {I see Genesis as both and the original Bible is no longer around, so we don’t know what it said and it was written in Hebrew, which was a dead language for centuries before being imperfectly restored.}
3. Thomas Paine – The Age of Reason (1794, 1795, 1807)
While not a scientific text, Paine’s critique of organized religion and literal biblical interpretation—including the Genesis creation account—was widely read and influential, especially among freethinkers and deists in the English-speaking world. Paine was also influenced by English Deism.
4. Charles Lyell – Principles of Geology (1830–1833)
Lyell’s three-volume work popularized uniformitarianism, arguing that geological processes observed in the present have operated over immense timescales. This directly challenged the idea that Earth's features were shaped by a recent, global flood as described in Genesis. {There’s more below. Around 1830 is apparently when geologists began to regard Noah’s Flood as a mere myth, thanks to Lyell.}
4. Robert Chambers – Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844)
Chambers’s book was one of the first popular works to suggest a natural, evolutionary process for the development of life. Though not as scientifically rigorous as Darwin’s later work, it reached a wide audience and stirred public debate about evolution and the age of the Earth. {There’s good evidence that life can evolve rapidly with electric fields. That may be why most mammals aren’t found in most sedimentary rock strata. They may have evolved from small mammals during the Flood. Human fossils have apparently been found in Flood strata in the U.S. southeast and around Colorado, so we probably didn’t evolve.}
5. Charles Darwin – On the Origin of Species (1859)
Darwin’s seminal work provided a detailed, evidence-based theory of evolution by natural selection. It fundamentally challenged the fixity of species and the necessity of special creation, becoming the cornerstone of modern biology and a focal point for debates about creationism5. {Creationists and friends are proving that’s nonsense.}
GERMAN HIGHER CRITICS
Several German scholars were central to the development of "higher criticism" in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Their academic approach applied historical and literary analysis to the Bible, challenging traditional views of authorship, composition, and literal interpretation. Here are some of the most influential figures:
Key German Higher Critics
Jean Astruc (1684–1766): Although French, Astruc's early documentary analysis of Genesis laid groundwork for later German scholars1,3.
Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791): Often called the "father of German rationalism in theology," Semler questioned the unity and divine authorship of biblical texts1. {If angels are divine, then the Bible is divine, as I think angels wrote the Bible and they used God’s inspiration to write it. E.g., Jesus had about 50,000 angel helpers.}
Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827): Regarded as the founder of modern Old Testament criticism, Eichhorn's work on the Pentateuch advanced the documentary hypothesis, suggesting multiple sources for the biblical text1,2,5,7.
Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860): Leader of the Tübingen School, Baur applied Hegelian philosophy to New Testament studies, arguing for later authorship and development of Christian doctrine1,5.
Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918): His "Documentary Hypothesis" (JEDP theory) regarding the composition of the Pentateuch became highly influential in both German and English-speaking scholarship1,2.
David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874): His work, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, argued that much of the Gospel narrative was myth, sparking major controversy1,5.
Influence on Non-German-Speaking Thinkers
Translation and Popularization: Works by German critics were translated into English and French, sometimes by prominent literary figures. For example, George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) translated Strauss’s Life of Jesus into English in 1846, making it accessible to a wider audience5.
British and American Scholars: English-speaking theologians and academics, such as S. R. Driver (Oxford), Charles A. Briggs (Union Theological Seminary, New York), and William Robertson Smith (Scotland), adopted and expanded upon German critical methods, often sparking controversy within their own religious communities2,3.
Academic Curricula: By the mid-19th century, higher criticism was being taught and debated at major universities in Britain and the United States, including Harvard, Yale, Andover, and Princeton3.
Cultural Impact: The ideas of German higher critics contributed to a broader movement of biblical revisionism and secular scholarship, influencing not only academic theology but also literature, philosophy, and public discourse in the English-speaking world3,5.
LYELL’S ARGUMENTS
Charles Lyell’s most persuasive arguments against the idea that sedimentary rock strata were deposited by a recent great flood centered on his theory of uniformitarianism and his extensive use of geological evidence to show that slow, gradual processes—rather than a single catastrophic event—shaped the Earth’s surface. {Yeah, wrong.}
Key Arguments from Lyell
1. Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism
Lyell argued that the geological processes observable today (such as erosion, sedimentation, volcanic activity, and earthquakes) have been operating in much the same way throughout Earth’s history3,4,6,8. This was in direct contrast to catastrophism, which posited that Earth's features were shaped by sudden, short-lived, violent events like Noah's Flood1,3,6.
He insisted on explaining geological change strictly in terms of known physical agents operating at current levels of force, rejecting appeals to unknown or miraculous causes4,6. {Do you mean he thought he knew everything way back then already?}
2. Evidence from Erosion and Valley Formation
Lyell observed that valleys and other landforms were formed through the slow process of erosion by rivers and streams, not by rapid, catastrophic flooding2. He used contemporary examples to show how gradual processes could account for large geological features over long periods. {Actually, large valleys, like the Mississippi River valley, show evidence of rapid formation and of having formed about 5,000 years ago.}
3. Fossil Records and Strata
By studying fossil records within rock layers, Lyell demonstrated that strata contained evidence of gradual ecological and climatic changes, not the sudden, chaotic deposition expected from a global flood3,4.
He noted the orderly succession of fossils and the presence of distinct faunas in different strata, which indicated a long, complex history rather than a single event3,4. {Actually, it’s likely that some creatures were unable to move to higher ground quickly enough and thus appear in lower strata. That’s more likely why different species are often in different strata.}
4. The Temple of Serapis Example
Lyell used the famous example of the Temple of Serapis in Italy, where pillars showed evidence of both submergence and emergence over time due to gradual geological processes. This illustrated how land could rise and fall slowly, not just through catastrophic events3. {It’s easier for water to rise and fall rapidly, than for land to do so slowly.}
5. Historical and Contemporary Geological Processes
Lyell cited historical records of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, showing that these processes, when extrapolated over vast periods, were sufficient to explain the elevation and subsidence of land seen in the geological record5.
He argued that the balance of constructive (volcanism) and destructive (erosion) forces maintained the Earth’s surface in equilibrium over immense timescales5. {Actually, at the current rate of erosion, all of the continents would erode to below sea level in 20 million years. So there would be no old strata left above sea level.}
6. Rejection of a Young Earth
Lyell used geological evidence to argue that the Earth was far older than the 6,000 years suggested by a literal reading of the Bible, making a recent global flood implausible as an explanation for the sedimentary record3,4.
20TH CENTURY ANTICREATIONISM
Key Influences in Geology, Biology, and Astronomy
Radioactive Dating (1907 onward, Geology):
Bertram Boltwood’s 1907 paper in the American Journal of Science introduced uranium–lead dating, providing the first absolute ages for rocks (400 million to 2.2 billion years) and establishing radiometric methods as key evidence for an ancient Earth, directly contradicting young-earth creationism. The subsequent development and widespread use of uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and rubidium-strontium dating further reinforced the geological timescale needed for evolution and plate tectonics. {But brand new hardened lava shows ages of millions of years, so their method doesn’t work. They cover up the truth.}Discovery of Galaxies Beyond the Milky Way (1924, Astronomy):
Edwin Hubble’s discovery that there are galaxies beyond the Milky Way, along with evidence for the universe’s expansion, provided strong evidence for a universe billions of years old and vastly larger than previously thought, directly contradicting young-universe models promoted by creationists. {I think the universe may be millions of years old. So far, I don’t know how God would have changed the speed of light naturally, but if we find that out, we can always change our minds. Actually, the universe might be eternal, if it’s God’s body or something like that.}Flood Geology Critique (1949, Geology):
J. Laurence Kulp’s critiques, especially his 1949 paper, demonstrated that flood geology was contradicted by established physical and chemical laws, radiometric dating, and fossil succession, helping to marginalize flood geology in academic circles. {Science became authoritarian and suppressed alternative research.}Response to The Genesis Flood (1961, Geology):
Although The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb was a creationist work that revived flood geology, its publication prompted a strong response from mainstream geologists, leading to a wave of anticreationist literature and critiques. {I think their book was also the revival of Creationism, which is now mostly superior to the mainstream. But Creationism also tends to share some of the same bad habits as the mainstream, like pride etc.}Carl Sagan’s Cosmos (1980, Astronomy):
Sagan’s book and television series popularized the scientific understanding of the universe’s age, the Big Bang, and stellar evolution, countering creationist cosmologies and promoting scientific literacy.Philip Kitcher – Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1982, Biology):
Kitcher’s philosophical and scientific critique systematically dismantled creationist claims in biology and became a widely cited reference in educational and legal contexts. {The dismantling was mostly imaginary.}Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1986, Biology):
Dawkins’ influential book defended evolution, directly addressing creationist arguments about design and complexity in nature.Arthur Strahler – Science and Earth History (1987, Geology):
Strahler’s comprehensive textbook systematically refuted creationist geology, explaining principles of stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and the fossil record, and became a cornerstone for educators and scientists countering flood geology and young-earth claims. {Nope}
MY COMMENTS
There has long been a conspiracy against God by God’s immature offspring, but God uses their work against them and for us all. The Good Shepherd saves all lost sheep. The Bible was never perfectly understood except by God. It was imperfectly copied over the generations. But God keeps helping us understand it and himself better. The anticreationists helped too. They have been authoritarian, which science proves is unscientific. God’s method of Unity, as per Acts 15 etc, is the truly scientific method. Science and Republican Government originated with Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa, Italy and his circle of Christian influencers.
The anticreationists were right that Creation and the Flood were not miracles, IMO, though God’s angels may have been greatly involved. Angels aren’t miracles, are they? We mortals aren’t miracles, are we? If we say everything is a miracle, then maybe we haven’t defined miracle well enough. The anticreationists were wrong though that the Creation and the Flood never occurred. I’m a non-creationist, not anti-.
UPDATE: REACTION TO RELIGIOUS DOGMATISM
It occurred to me lately that religious dogmatism probably had a significant influence in persuading scientists against Biblical claims. I find good evidence of that.
Several prominent writers and speakers—especially in the late 19th century—explicitly claimed that scientists were reacting against religious authoritarianism or dogmatic theology, rather than just biblical claims in general.
John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White are the two most influential figures who advanced this perspective. In his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), Draper argued that the history of science was a continual struggle against the "dogmatic theology" of religious authorities, depicting science as progressive and rational, and religion (especially organized, authoritarian forms) as superstitious and repressive. White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) similarly framed the relationship as a battle of enlightened science against the authoritarianism of the church, especially Catholicism6,7,2.
The so-called "conflict thesis"—the idea of an intrinsic, historical war between science and religion—was popularized by Draper and White. They both portrayed scientists as reacting against not just scriptural literalism, but the broader authoritarianism of religious institutions that sought to control knowledge and suppress dissent2,6,7.
Victorian scientific naturalists such as Thomas Huxley and John Tyndall also promoted the notion that scientific progress required liberation from the constraints of theological authority and religious dogma. They described their own efforts as a reaction against the dominance of religious authority in intellectual and public life, contrasting "free, progressive scientific inquiry" with "authoritative, reactionary methods of theology"6.
The roots of this rhetoric go back to Enlightenment figures like Pierre Bayle, who criticized both religious intolerance and the enforcement of religious conformity, arguing that reason and scientific investigation should be free from ecclesiastical authority5.
John William Draper was both a scientist and a writer. He was the first president of the American Chemical Society and was recognized as a prominent scientist in his era, though he was also an amateur historian2,4,6. Andrew Dickson White, on the other hand, was not a scientist; he was a historian, a senator in the New York State Legislature, and most notably, the co-founder and first president of Cornell University2,3,6.
Regarding publication in popular periodicals:
Andrew Dickson White published his conflict thesis in Popular Science Monthly in 1874 before expanding it into book form as The Warfare of Science (1876)1,7.
Draper’s and White’s works were widely discussed and reviewed in the press of their time, and their books reached a broad audience, but their primary arguments appeared in books and, in White's case, also in a major science periodical1,7,8.