Volume 2 Number 1 Article 4

September 1973

Uniformitarian Principle Uniformitarian Principle

Richard G. Hodgson Dordt College

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege

Part of the Christianity Commons, Geology Commons, and the Higher Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Hodgson, Richard G. (1973) "Uniformitarian Principle," Pro Rege: Vol. 2: No. 1, 14 - 19. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol2/iss1/4

This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact ingrid.mulder@dordt.edu.

marilybesaidofrevelationasaunity, inclusiveof both supernatural pre-redemptive and naturalreve lation. The revelation of God in nature asit now is, is still clearly manifestory of God.'1It is in this context that Van Ti I comments: I'Wemay, therefore, with Kuyper, speak of twofoldscience and yet also speak of the unity of sci-ence." (p.13)and: "Why should the Christianthen not gratefu fly emp loy, for purposes of ad-vancing knowledge, the funded results of theinvestigation of scientists, whether they beChristians or not? He may do so, only if hedoes not, while doing it, thereby concede the

independence or the juxtaposition of the naturalprinciple asover against the special principle. II

(p. 14)5. Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Revelation and

the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse,1958, pp. 18, 19,23.

6. The result of such an attitude to life,and especially' of neo-Pentecostalism, is theestablishment of all sorts of Bible Schools. Onemight as well put padlocks, then, on all insti-tutions of ~dvanced) scholarship and on all othercenters of training for various tasks in our cul-ture and world.

by Richard G. HodgsonInstructor in Astronomy

i?ev. !,ftt. Hodgson is Instructor of Astronomy atDordt. At present he directs the observationaL Pl'O-gram8 concerning Mercury and the Minor Planets forthe Association of Lunar and Planetary Obse1'Vers~and edits the Minor PLanet BuLLetin. Before comingto Dordt in 1969 he taught astronomy at the Univer-sity of Vermont. !4r. Hodgson aLso hoLds a rn.M..degree from westminster TheoLogicaL Seminary and isa minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

The Uniformitarian Principle Defined to set the record straight.]The Uniformitarian Principle holdsthat

". . .rocks formed long ago at the earth's sur-face may be understood and explained inaccordance with physical processes now oper-ating" (Gi Iluly, Waters, and Woodford, f!:l!)..-ciples of Geology, 3rd ed., 1968, p. 18).There are two reasons why this definition isfar better than the bri ef dictum "The presentis the key to the past," which is commonly

The Uniformitarian Principle, which hasbeen abasicassumption of historical geologysince it was first proposed by James Hutton ofEdinburgh, Scotland, in 1785, has been fre-quentlyquestioned by Bible-believing Chris-tians. Overthe past two centuries many ex-treme statements have been made on both sidesof this subject, so that it would be well to try

-'4-

exercise His rule in a fairly consistent anduniform manner. There are certain funda-mental constants and physical principles ob-served by scientists which have been found tobe consistently the same throughout the ob-servable universe. For example, Kepler'slawsofplanetary motion also apply to binarystar systems. Another example is gravitation.Fortunately for us, it is not a part-time phe-nomenon. Rather a universal constant of gra-vitation has been determined which appliesnot only to the Earth and Solar System, butto the stars and galaxies as well. The lengthof the year (the period of the Earth's revolu-tion around the Sun) can be very preciselydetermined, and does not vary. The velocityof light inspace (most recently determined tobe 299, 792, 456.2 + 1 .1 meters/second) is ap-parentlythe same everywhere and throughouttime. light has the same velocity today as that

quoted. First, the principle is not blind ex-trapolation on the basis of the present condi-tions apart from supporting observational evi-dence-an impression its opponents have oftensoug ht to convey. Second, our knowl edge of"physical processes now operating" is notperfect, but is subject to improvement as aresult of current and future research. Thus,The Uniformitarian Principle is not as dogma-ti c as some have taken it to be.

As Christians we should recognize thatour know ledge of the physi ca I processes go ingon in the created universe is limited. Theso-called "Laws of Nature" are merely thegeneralizations drawn by man from somewhatlimited data, based on observations and ex-perime.l]ts conducted on and near the planetEarth. Only the Sovereign God knows fullyand completely the laws and principles bywhich His creation isgoverned. In the Bible

we learn that God rufesby laws, yet personallyover His creation ~f. Psalms 78, ] 04, ] O~ etc.).He is a faithful Guardian of His creatures.

On whatever subject the Bible speaks(including science) it speaks with the fullauthority of God. It is not merely the wordof Moses or Paul or Peter. Thus Scriptureteaches that God made man by a special actof creation uniquely in His own image; Dar-winism and Neo-Darwinism are clearly con-trary to Scripture. (Likewise, some theoriesof modern cosmology cannot be squared withthe Scriptures either). The Bible, however,does not te II us about all the fundamentalconstants and scientific principles displayedin the creation. It says nothing about theprinciples of electricity and magnetism, norabout the relationship of chemical elementsand the periodic table. It tells us nothingabout the design or repa{r of modern farmmachinery. These must be discovered fromthe study of the creation, not the Bible.

It would appear that in respect to thephysical creation God has been pleased to

measured in 1675 by Glaus Romer when he firstnoted that light has a finite velocity in con-nection with observations of the eclipses ofJupiter's satellites.

That there should be such fundamentalphysical constants and principles seems to beindicated as a creation ordinance in Genesis1:14: "And God said, Let there be lights inthe firmament of the heaven to divide the dayfrom the night; and let them be for signs, andfor seasons, and for days and years: II This or-

derliness of God's creation was reaffirmed inHis promise after the Flood: "Whi Ie the earthremaineth, seedtime and harvest, and coldand heat, and summer and wi nter, and dayand night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:22).God promises regu larity of times' and seasonsto us, not chaos and disjunction.

The fundamental constants and principlesmentioned above are but a few of those uti-lized by scientists in various fields. Thereare many others in physics, chemistry, andastronomy, which might be cited.

There are some events recorded in the

-15-

principle do not go into this, preferring totalk in general terms about the terrible dan-gers of extrapolation. Let us, however consi-dersome of the "reckless" assumptions whichare made under the banner of the Uniformi-tarian Principle.

First it is assumed that water has alwaysrundown hill by reason of gravitation, whichis a fundamental constant. This may soundtrivial, but water in the form of rains, rivers,oceans, and glaciers is very important in thegeological processes of weathering of rocksand erosion. Sedimentation usually also in-volves water.

Under the Uniformitarian Principle it isassumed that rivers have always eroded theoutside curve of their banks, developing moreand more pronounced meanders until theseloops intersect and cut-offsoccur. This is inaccordance with Newton's First Law of Mo-tion, which involves inertia. Two other ba-

Scripture which constitute exceptions to thesefundamental physical principles. Christchanged water into wine at Cana (John 2: 1 ff).He walked on water (Mark 6:45ff, Matthew14:22ff, John 6:16ff). He calmed the storm(Luke8:2ff). He ascended bodily into heaven(Acts 1 :9-11). Clearly, the laws of chemis-try and of gravitation presently known to mancanr)ot confine our God. Such unusual cases,however, were designed to manifest the gloryof the Triune God and to promote the welfareof Hispeople. Most were manifested at cri-tical times in the history of God's people.They impress us as remarkable because theystand out from the orderly manner that theLord employs in upholding and sustaining Hiscreation-an operation we tend to take for

granted.God is !2E!. presented in Scripture as a

magician who delights in tricks and decep-tions, who engages in capricious activities.

He is a God or order, not of chaos.Application of observationally and ex-

perimentally well-attested fundamental con-stants and principles in science should nottherefore be cause for objection. They seemto be implied in God's Word (cf. Genesis1:14, 8:22~), and they are the very back-bone of the scientific enterprise. In the fieldof planetology (which includes geology), thisapplication involves the use of the Uniformi-tarian Principle. In interpreting the rockstrata of the Earth's crust, therefore, the ge-ologist assumes that the same physical lawswere operative when the rock strata were de-posited as the operative today.

The Uniformitarian Principle in Action

sic assumptions occording to the Uniformi-tarian Principle are commonly made: (1) ina lake or along a coast, sediment tends tosettle in nearly horizontal strata at a giventime, and (2) in undisturbed formations, theoldest strata are to be found under the youngerstrata. In similar manner there are distinctcharacteristics of erosion by glaciers and bywind.

The consistent working of these physicalprocesses is seen throughout the world today,and has been seen throughout recorded histor)'In the light of God's orderly maintenance ofHis creation is it dangerous and farfetched toassume these processes were operative inprehistoric times'?

Many of the buildings in Glasgow, Scot-land, for example, are constructed of sand-stone quarried nearoy. The structure of thesand particles in these stones is well-roundedgrains that have been evenly and cleanly

What physical laws are assumed to haveexisted in the past on the basis of the Uni-formitarian Principle? Many critics of the

-lA-

sorted in a manner typical of windblown de-sert sand, and clearly not characteristic ofbeach sand. This is strong evidence that atone time the Glasgow area was a dry desert,quite different from the well-watered regionwe know today. We find similar sand condi-tions today in the Mohave Desert in Cali-fornia, and also in central Australia.

The case of the Glasgow sandstone indi-cates that the climate of a given region ofthe Earth may change drastically over longperiods of time in accordance with the Uni-formitarian Principle-in this case the physicsof weathering and erosion. Climates change,mountain ranges rise and erode, coastal seasintrude and recede from continental interiors.The rock records of the world, enough to makea composite geologica! column 155 km high,tell many strange wonders when interpretedin the light of observed physical processes.

tic intruding into the mid-continental regionbringing salt water into an area of very littleprecipitation and high evaporation. In otherwords, the region was a desert containing avery dead sea. (A simi lar situation existedmuch later in the Permian basins in west Texas,where other enormous salt deposits exist).

A Change of Atmosphere

Just as we cannot extrapolate past cli-mates for given regions from present conditionsin those regions, neither can we assume thatthe composition of the Earth's atmosphere isthe same throughout its history. Over 900/Q ofthe atmospheres of Venus and Mars (the majorplanets whose orbits are nearest our own) con-sists of carbon dioxide, whi Ie that gas consti-tutes less than 1 % of the Earth's atmosphere.Many scientists now think that the limited

amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmos-phereisnottheoriginal condition, but is dueto the unique presence of life-particularlyplant I ife-which has transformed much of thecarbon dioxide into free oxygen, and allowedmuch of the carbon to be absorbed into theEarth's crust.

Geology supplies strong evidence forsuch a change in the constitution of the Earth'satmosphere. In some of the very oldest rocksthere are unusual banded iron formationsSpecifica Ily; these include the Animikie rockseries and older series around lake Superi~r,which belong to the earlier portion of theCryptozoicEonandaredated by geologists at1 .6 bi I fion years of age or more. These vastdeposits, formed by the deposition of iron andsilica, could not have been laid down at atime when the Earth had an oxidizing atmos-phere as it now does. These deposits, fromwhich we get most of our iron ore in North

Another example of radically differentclimatic conditions is that involving lowerMichigan, eastern Ohio, northwestern Penn-sylvania, and the Finger Lake region of NewYork during the upper (late) portion of theSi lurian period known as the Cayugan series.In the upper portion of the Salina shale ofthis series we find an enormous amount of salt.South of Ithaca, New York, at a depth of0.6 to 1.0 km underground there are seyenbeds of salt with a combined thickneSs of 80meters. In the central portion of lower Mich-iganthethicknessofthesalt beds is immense.Deep wells reveal a thickness of 0.5 km ofrock salt, and the formation underlies most ofthe lower peninsula!

How could such vast salt deposits haveformed? Recently discovered Silurian rockbeds in the Notre Dame Mountains south ofthe Gulf of the St. Lawrence indicate thatthere was probablya narrow arm of the Atlan-

-17-

America, must have been formed before therewas a significant amount of free oxygen in theatmosphere. Consistent with this, one doesnot find banded iron formations in any of thelater rock formations of the warld.

In this case, on the basis of the principlesof chemistry, physics, and what we know ofthe biological requirements and effects of life,we perceive a radical change in the Earth'satmosphere. Here again the application oft~e ~iformitarian Principle does not meanthat the present simply dictates the past.

The Bible and the Uniformitarian Principle

mitarian Principle because it was supposedlycondemned by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:4,where Peter condemns those who deny the Se-cond Coming of Christ because they allege".. .all things continue as they were from thebeginning of the creation. II Aswe have seen,

however, the Uniformitarian Principle doesnot preclude radical changes and disastrousevents from happening in the course of theEarth's history. In the case of Jesus Christ'sSecond Coming in glory, we have an excep-tional situation in which the wisdom of Godsurpasses the generalizations of men based ona study of the created uni verse.

Inthis connection it is well to rememberthat some misapplications of Scripture havebeen made in relation to science in the past.Somewhat over 400 years ago the ancient the-ory of Aristarchus that the Earth was a planetrevolving around the Sun, was revived by Co-pernicus. At that time some Christians (in-cluding Tycho Brahe) argued that this was im-possible on the basisofPsalm 93: Ic and 96:1 Db,which both soy, liThe world olso is stobl ished,that itcannotbe moved. 114 Nowthat we have

the laws of Keplerand Newton, and hove de-termined the Earth's motion precisely in space,and even journeyed to the Moon, no one getsexcited any more. (The passages are reallyspeokingofthefirmruleofGodover the worldof men. But that was not understood four cen-turies ago).

Another case, this one involving geologyand the providence of God, emerged threecenturies ago when it was realized that themagnificent Giant Elk (or Irish Elk)of Europe,whose antlers measured as much as 14 feet fromtip to tip, was extinct. Many people weresure that this could not be the case-it wouldbe an imperfection in the providential core ofGod if He allowed any whole species to perish.It was a pious and heated argument for sometime, now largely forgotten. Some Christianswere sure that the Lord was protecting a smallherd of elk somewhere in a hidden valley. Suchviews rested on religious sentiment, but notupon ony explicit promise of the Scriptures.

The Lord is King

I stro~glybelieve there is nothing unbib-l!c~l. in th~ Uniformitarian Principle if it isrightly applied and interpreted. It does not~s I hope I-have shown above) lay a base forinordinate extrapolation. It is not to be usedinvacuo, that is apart from the data presentedin the rock record.

Since many modern geologists are Dor-W\1'\\Q1'\ or Neo-DQrw\n\Q1'\ evo\ut\o1'\i~t~, therehave been misapplications and misinterpreta-tions in many of ,:he textbooks. This situationexists in part because so few Christians witha Reformed, Kingdom perspe~tive have enteredthe field, not because the rock record reallysupports the evol utionary theory. 3

Some readers may be inclined to rejectthe Uniformitarian Principle because of thelarge numberof skeptics, agnostics, and athe-ists \J10 are its proponents. l.k1bel ievers, how-ever, embrace many other fundamental con-stantsandprinciplesas well, such as the lawsof Kepler and Newton. Do we reject thesealso because of the supporters they may at-tract? Is it the course of wisdom to opposesomething simply because many heretics andinfidels happen to believe it? Is it not truethat we continue to confess in the NiceneCreed our belief I,.. .one holy catholic andapostolic Church..." in spite of the manyheretics and unbelievers who may have en-rolled in denominations utilizing the names"Catholic" and "Apostolic"? Mention of theUniformitarian Principle should not provoke anextreme reaction. Properly defined and under-stood, it is valid.

Some Christians have opposed the Unifor- One other important question concerning

.18-

the Uniformitarian Principleremainstobe dis-cussed. Does it bind the history of Earth to thecanons of some man-made or man-discoveredphysical laws, leaving no room for the divinecreation of our planet, and of the universe?Does it rule out God's subsequent rule over andintervention in His creation? Doubtless, someatheists wou Id like to construe it that way, butI do not think that we should let them getaway with it, any more than we should allowa good word like" catho I i c" to become the ex-clusiveproperty of the Papists. Too long theatheistic evolutiontsts have regarded geologyand the Uniformitarian Principle as their pri-vate domain.

The Uniformitarian Principle does notlimit the activity of the Sovereign God. Itis an expression of the way in which He hasbeen pleased to conduct geological processesthrough the course of Earth's history, at leastso far as His general operations are concerned.As has a Iready been poi nted out the Bib I e re-cords some unique events manifesting the poY.erof God transcending ordinary expectations.Among these events certainly must be placedHis worksof creation exnihilo, and His manyunique acts recorded in Biblical history. Godis not limited, yet He does not have to actchaotically to prove His freedom. He doesnot have to prove anythi ng. He is not on tri a I.

Some scientists have tried to use the Uni-formitarian Principle in connection with anaturalistic world and life view to explainaway God's works of creation and to deny Hispresent rule over the created universe. Theireffort is an evidence of the sinful rebellion ofmankind against its Creator. In the face ofthese distortions, the Christian is called toset the record straight, and to emphasize theclaim and the rule of Jesus Christ over all ofHis creation.

other side, for example, Seventh Day AdventistHarold W. Clark of Pacific Union Collegemaintains that the disappearance of the dino-saurs is due to their being drowned in theNoahic flood (Fossils, Flood and Fire (1968)pp. 11, 35,130). If that were the case, itwould appear that Noah failed to obey God'scommand to take at least two of every kind ofanimal into the ark (Gen. 7:2). This argumentconcerning dinosaurs is part of Clark's atta~on the Uniformitarian Principle.

2. In this article, Earth, Moon, and Sunare capitalized in accordance with astronomi-cal convention. I adopt this practi ce to em-phasize that the Earth and the created universeare emphatically not co-terminous. It is i~-portant that the reader sense that we are I ivi ng,working, and thinking on a tiny space plat-form ca lied Earth, if he wou Id see with trueperspective. One must try to !:.orrectsome ofthe incredible geocentricity of man to makeway for a true theocentricity. Perhaps capital-izing the name of our spaceship may serve toremind us how frai I and limited we are.

3. If the reader wants a recent accountof the extreme improbability of evolutionism,he should read Frank W. Cousins The Solar~(1972), chapter 15, on the possibilitiesfor life'sstarting accidentally in the universe.This very learned, well-documented exam-ination is written by a secular scientist whohas no reason to support the Christian doctrineof creation. He is honest with his data, as atrue sci entist must be, and punctures the bal-loon of Darwinism with devastating effect. Itis the best I have read on the subject. Cou-sins finds the chance for accidental origins oflife anywhere in the universe to be one in10.485

4. This was part, but not all of TychoBrahe's reason for rejecting the view of Aris-tarchus and Copernicus. Another weightyfactor was the absence of observable stellarparallaxes which would indicate the Earth'smotion around the Sun. Because even thenearest stars are so far away (4.25 light years),stellar parallaxes remained unobserved untilthe development of moderate-sized tele-

scopes.

1. Consi der some of the dogmati c sci en-tismofAndrew D. White's History of the War-fare of Science with Theolog in Christendom(2 vo Is., 1896). The first president of CorneUniversity, White went out of his way to at-tack Biblical Christianity, and went far be-yond the warrant of scientific data. On the

-19-