Earth science students are frequently discouraged from considering alternative explanations such as we have examined concerning the frozen mammoths. Too often, students are told what to think, not taught how to think critically. Why is this?
Before the field of geology began in the early 1800s, a common explanation for major geological features was a global flood. Early geologists were hostile to such explanations for three reasons. First, many geologists were opposed to the Bible, which spoke of a global flood. Second, flood explanations seemed, and sometimes were, scientifically simplistic. Finally, because a global flood is an unrepeatable catastrophe, it cannot be studied directly.
Instead of appearing closed-minded by disallowing flood explanations, a more subtle approach was simply to disallow global catastrophes. This rationale was more justifiable, because modern science requires experimental repeatability. By definition, catastrophes are large, rarely repeated, and difficult to reproduce. The flaw in this exclusionary logic is that catastrophes can occur, involve many phenomena, and leave widespread wreckage and strange details that require an explanation. (You have seen many relating to frozen mammoths.) Most of these phenomena are testable and repeatable on a smaller scale. Some are so well tested and understood that mathematical calculations and computer simulations can be made at any scale.
How were catastrophes disallowed? Professors in the new and growing field of geology were primarily selected from those who supported the anticatastrophe doctrine. These professors did not advance students who espoused catastrophes. An advocate of a global flood was branded a “biblical literalist” or “fuzzy thinker”—not worthy of an academic degree. Geology professors also influenced, through the peer review process, what papers could be published. Textbooks soon reflected their orthodoxy, so few students became “fuzzy thinkers.” This practice continues to this day, because a major criterion for selecting professors is the number of their publications.
This anticatastrophe doctrine is called uniformitarianism. Since 1830, it has been summarized by the phrase, “ The present is the key to the past.” In other words, only processes observable today and acting at present rates can be used to explain past events. Because some catastrophes, such as large impacts from outer space, are now fashionable, many now recognize uniformitarianism as a poor, arbitrary assumption—a stifling requirement.174
This presents geologists with a dilemma. Because uniformitarianism is foundational to geology, should the entire field be reexamined? Uniformitarianism was intended to banish the global flood. Will the death of uniformitarianism allow scholarly consideration of evidence that implies a global flood? Most geologists object to such a possibility. They either deny that a problem exists or hope it will go away. Some try to redefine uniformitarianism to mean that only the laws of physics observed today can be used to explain past geological events—an obvious principle of science long before uniformitarianism was sanctified. [See Endnote 22 on page 211.] The problem will not go away, but will fester even more until enough geologists recognize that catastrophes were never the problem. Early geologists simply, and arbitrarily, wanted to exclude the global flood, not catastrophes.175
Ruling out catastrophes in general (and the flood specifically), even before all facts are in, has stifled study and understanding. The “frozen mammoth issue” is one of many examples. Disallowing catastrophes also produces a mind-set where strange observations are ignored, or considered unbelievable—not viewed as possibly important diagnostic details worthy of our testing and consideration.
Table 10 on page 292 is a broad target for anyone who wishes to grapple with ideas. Notice that it invites, not suppresses, critiques. All theories should be subject to analysis, critique, and refinement. We can focus on the more likely theories, on any misunderstandings or disagreements, on diagnostic details that need further verification, and on the expensive process of testing predictions. With theories and their predictions clearly enumerated, field work becomes more exciting and productive. Most important, those who follow us will have something to build upon. They will not be told what to think.