ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO YEARS OF BAD CALLS

Another flashcard in the debates of evolution vs. creationism.

(Hat tip to a poster at Pharyngula for this tip-off)

We've all heard it at one point or another (and if you haven't, just wait: it's the much-awaited 'swan song ' that gets batted around in any online debate when someone claims 'evolution is dying') - turns out it's been around longer than Darwin's theory. 1825, to be exact.

Title of said paper is The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism, by one G. R. Morton.

"In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order."

It's actually 182 years, but the publish date is 2002 (albeit there's some obviously later addendums at the bottom, up to 2006).

"1825

"...Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaic statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon's and Newton's philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; 'That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.'" Granville Penn, Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6"

We all know how that worked out, don't we? The next one is interesting:

"1840

Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:

"Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge." Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38

For those who don't know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.

Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:

"As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel." John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi"

Read the rest. That's mmm-hmmm, good readin', it is!

I searched on Neptunism and Huttonism. Strange stuff.

"Neptunism is a discredited and obsolete scientific theory of geology proposed by Abraham Werner in the late 18th century that proposed rocks formed from the crystallisation of minerals in the early Earth's oceans."

Apparently, this was in direct opposition to the 'Great Deluge', that long held theory stemming from the bible that the world was covered by a flood (which everyone who has half a mind knows, has been debunked and refuted so thoroughly, only a hopeless romantic would cling to it).

Also, Huttonism is "This paper discusses some controversial petrological ideas, expressed in the geonomic literature of our time.

Origin and evolution of the crust: According to classical magmatism the sialic crust is segregated from the mantle in the course of the Earth's evolution, causing a growth of the continental crust. Arguments against this concept are advanced.

According to neo-huttonism the sialic crust developed from the outside in an early phase of the Earth's history. This might have occurred according to the hot-Earth theory on the origin of our planet (Rittmann), or according to the cold-Earth theory of cosmogenesis (Urey; Berlage)."

How that conflicts is a mystery I don't feel obliged to root out. I restrict myself to the arcana of religion (that's rich enough in context to keep me blogging for years, no end in sight).

So put this puppy in your back pocket, and...wait for it...THWACK! Right between the eyes.

Imminent demise, my homesick ass.

Anyways, till the next post.