The Waning of the Flood Waters

IN  1696,  the  successor  to  Sir  Isaac Newton's  chair, William Whiston,  published  the  novel  theory  that  the Noachian Flood was caused by the passing  of  a  comet  extremely  close  to  the earth.  In  1755 the philosopher,  Immanuel  Kant,  published  the  idea  that  the Flood was caused by the collapse of rings composed  of  "watery vapours" that supposedly  once  encircled  the  earth  like Saturn's rings.

Although  sometimes  bordering  on the  bizarre,  the  firm  conviction  of  the eighteenth-century  mind  was  that  the universal Flood  has left its marks upon the  surface  of  the  earth.  But  with the birth of  the modern theory of  evolution in the mid-1750's this  concept  faced its first  full-scale threat. DeMaillet, one of the earliest of the French evolutionists, scoffed at the idea of a flood through the mouth of  his make-believe philosopher, Telliamed. Another French evolutionist of  the  same  era,  Comte  de  Buff on,  had no room  for the Flood in his naturalistic theory,  as  Green  attests:  "Clearly,  the scientific  world  was  ready  for  a  theory of  the earth which would  dispense with the  Deluge  and  seek  the  key  to  fossil phenomena and earth history in nature itself.  .  .  .  Buffon's  theory  of  the  earth, contained  in  the  first  volume  of  his Natural  History  (1749)  had  precisely that aim." ¹

Why  should the pre-Darwinian evolutionists  demonstrate  such  antagonism toward  the  Biblical  Flood?  Could  it  be that  they  foresaw  that  such  a  belief would be one of the chief barriers placed in  the  path  of  the  progress  of  organic evolution. 

With the dawn of the nineteenth century we turn to France, where evolution had planted its stronghold first and fore most in pre-Darwinian days.

The evolutionist Jean Baptiste de La marck  not  only  substituted  unlimited time  for the six thousand years but also gradual  imperceptible  changes  for  catastrophic events,  such as the Flood. He did  so  with a passion. "He ridiculed the idea  that  fossils  were  authentic monuments  of  the  Deluge  or  of  some  great catastrophe in nature." ²

Another  historian,  a  countryman  of Lamarck's,  writes:  "No  less  severe  was his  philosophical  hostility amounting to hatred  for  the  tradition  of  the  Deluge and  the  Biblical  creation  story,  indeed for everything which recalled the Christian theory of  nature." ³

Such  outspoken  assertions  called  for a  counterattack,  and  the  one  who  be came  the  leader  of  the  opposing  camp was  the  Frenchman  Cuvier, the  father of vertebrate paleontology.

Cuvier's  school  of  thought, which be came  known  as  Catastrophism,  did  not assign all  fossils to the time of the Noachian Flood. For him the Flood was simply  the  last  (and  not  necessarily  the greatest)  of  a  series of worldwide inundations  interspersed  with  successive creations.  Thus  both  the  traditional Creation  and  Flood  concepts  were  altered.

Catastrophism  quickly  leaped  to  the British  Isles,  and  its  chief  proponent became  a  theologian  turned  geologist, William  Buckland,  who  in  the  1820's was  considered to be "the foremost English  geologist, the chief architect of the catastrophist  synthesis." ⁴  His  book, Reliquiae  Diluvianae,  which  appeared in  1823,  "was  of  such  a  high  scientific calibre  .  .  .  that it firmly implanted the actuality  of  the Deluge in the minds of geologists, as well as non-geologists, not only in Britain,  but throughout Europe and America." ⁵

Many of the prominent Catastrophists stepped  from  a  theological  background into  geology.  Adam  Sedgwick,  for  one, classified the Cambrian system  of rocks and  William  Conybeare  wrote  an  authoritative  work  on  geology.  It  is  surprising  to  many  to  discover  how  the majority  of  early  geologists in England worked  from  a  diluvial viewpoint, thus earning the title of scriptural geologists.

The year 1830 marked a rapid turning of the tide away from Catastrophism to the  opposite  view  known  as  Uniformitarianism.  This  was  accomplished   almost  single-handedly  by  Charles  Lyell, who  became  known  as  the  father  or high priest of  uniformitarianism.

Lyell's  newly  published  book,  Principles  of  Geology,  provided  the  wind  for Charles  Darwin's  sails  during  his famous  voyage  on  the  Beagle  and  provided  the  geological  structure  into which the  biological  phase  of  evolution could be  fitted.

However,  Lyell's  uniformitarianism was  simply an amplification to the  full est  degree  of  that  which  was  first  ex pounded  by  the  Scottish  geologist, James  Hutton.  For  both  men  the  survival  of  this  view  depended  on  the elimination  of  the  Biblical  Flood  and Biblical  chronology.  One  historian  has summarized Hutton's accomplishments: "He thus banished all catastrophes from his  theory.  Even  the  Noachian  deluge was excluded because, he observed, 'general  deluges  form  no  part of the theory of  the  earth;  for,  the  purpose  of  this earth is evidently to maintain vegetable and  animal  life,  and  not  to  destroy them.' To  Hutton must be the credit for being  the  first  British  naturalist  to make a  complete  break with Moses." ⁶

Lyell  derived  much of  his inspiration not  only  from  Hutton but also  from the French  evolutionist,  Lamarck.  Al though enamored by Lamarck's endless ages  of  time,  he  refused  to  accept  his evolutionary  arrangement  of  living things.  In  fact,  Lyell  in  1830  argued strongly  for  man's  appearance  in  a distinct supernatural act that took place about six thousand years ago!

Roadblocks to Uniformitarianism

Many  of  Lyell's  arguments  for  the uniformity  of  all  natural  processes were  derived  from  George  Poulett-Scrope's  book  on  Italian volcanoes.  For him as well  as Lyell it was evident that the  greatest  roadblock  in  the  path  of Uniformitarianism  was  the  Biblical Flood.  By  stretching  earth history into "millions  of  years"  the  Flood  could  be eliminated.  Geological  evidence  could then be  explained  on  the  basis of  gradual  changes  over  immense  periods  of time,  rather than  abrupt  changes  in  a brief time interval.  It should by now  be fully  evident that the concepts  of Biblical  chronology  (Creation  week  placed only  a  few  millennia  in  the  past)  and Biblical  geology  (universal  Flood)  are inseparably interwoven.

The  1820's  witnessed  one  of  the stormiest  conflicts  in  geological  history between  Catastrophists  and  Uniformitarians,  paralleling  remarkably the Fundamentalist  controversy  almost precisely one hundred years later. After one  conflict  with  the  Diluvialists  at  a Geological  Society  meeting  in  1829 Lyell  wrote  a  friend:  "Murchison and  I fought  stoutly,  and Buckland  was  very piano. Conybeare's memoir is not strong by  any means. He  admits three  deluges before  the  Noachian,  and  Buckland adds  .  .  .  many  catastrophes  besides,  so we  have  driven them  out of the Mosaic record fairly." ⁷

Produced Shock Waves

The first publication of Lyell's book in 1830  made  one  of  the  greatest impacts on  the  field  of  geology,  an impact that could  be  compared  only to that made 29 years  later  by  Darwin's  The  Origin  of the Species. It also produced shock waves in theology.

Unfortunately,  the  ranks  of  the Catastrophists became quickly scattered and  many  began  actually  to  abandon their  faith in  a  universal  flood.  Among these  were  Adam  Sedgwick  and  the "dean  of  the  diluvialists,"  William Buckland. It is ironic that one who was a student  of  Buckland  for  three  years, Charles  Lyell,  would  eventually  win out  over the  catastrophism championed by  his  mentor.  Although  Buckland never  accepted  uniformitarianism  as such,  he  did  ultimately  dispense  with the Biblical flood.

Did  any  of the "scriptural geologists" become  susceptible  to  the  concept  of organic evolution? One historian speaks of  "Sedgwick's  apostasy" and his public "recantation" as a result of his dismissal of  the Flood.  Although he did  not abandon  his  belief  in  catastrophes  he  did eliminate the Noachian Flood as one of them.⁸  Buckland simply transferred the Flood  from  a  universal  experience  to  a local  event.

The  most  convincing  example  of susceptibility  to  Darwinian  evolution after  the  abandonment  of  Biblical chronology  and  Biblical  geology  is Charles  Lyell  himself.  At  first  he  held to  the  concept  of  Biblical  chronology being valid only for the human race, and not  for  the  whole  fossil  record,  a  position  which  he  fiercely  defended  for three  decades. But with the publication of  Darwin's  The  Origin  of  the  Species he  began  to  weaken,  although  not  fast enough to  suit Darwin.

In  1863  Lyell  published  a  book  called the  Antiquity  of  Man,  the  title  itself indicating that he had by then given up his view that man's history was limited to  six  thousand  years.  Finally,  "the tenth  edition  of  the Principles,  published  in  1866,  contains  an  excellent account  of  the  leading  principles  of Darwin's  work." ⁹  One  historian  goes into  great detail in explaining what he calls  the  "conversion  of  Lyell  to  Darwinism." ¹⁰

One  of  the  leading  authorities  on Darwin  today,  Loren  Eiseley,  writes: "Curiously,  though  Lyell  won  in  the geological  field  a  victory  similar to  the one  Darwin  was  later  to  achieve  in biology,  he  did  not  become  an  evolutionist  until  his  last  years,  although today it seems  to  us that evolution was the  normal  consequence  of  the  system he presented." ¹¹

Another  adds:  "Just as  Lyell  had expelled  the  Deluge  from  the  geological history of Europe, so now Darwin threw even  graver  doubt  on  'the  veracity  of Moses  as  an  historian.' "  ¹²  The  chief apostle  of Darwinism in the nineteenth century,  Thomas  Huxley,  in  1887  summarized  Lyell's  accomplishments:  "I cannot  but  believe  that  Lyell  was,  for others,  as  for myself, the chief agent in smoothing the  road for Darwin." ¹³

It is  strange indeed that the one who strictly  held  to  uniformitarianism  in the  geological  realm refused to apply it in any way to the biological realm until the  time  described  in  1863  by  a  theologian  turned  evolutionist,  Charles Kingsley:  "Darwin is conquering every where, and rushing in like a flood by the mere  force of truth and fact." ¹⁴  Having let loose  of  Biblical  chronology  and the Biblical  Flood,  Lyell,  among  a  host  of others,  was  caught  up  in  the  flood  of Darwinism.