THE GREAT SWINDLE

GEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

UNIFORMITARIANISM

Uniformitarianism is the name for the idea that, in essence, evolution takes place by way of consistent  natural processes occuring gradually  over long periods of time (thousands & millions of years).

The term uniformitarian (at least as defined above) is actually applicable to both current geological and biological theories of evolution. However, it is usually applied only to current geological theory and not in the context of biological theory. This is so because current geological theory asserts not only basic uniformitarianism (consistent, gradual changes over time) but an additional element as well (which Darwinism does not assert, as will be discussed shortly), and has co-opted the term for itself as including this additional element. This additional element is usually stated something like this:

That the Earth has undergone many changes is quite apparent. There is plenty of evidence and proof of that.

The question is, by what means has the Earth changed? What is the mechanism or mechanisms by which that change has taken place?

This theory answers that question by saying all past changes in the Earth have come about by way of the very same processes we see operating today, and only  by way of those same processes.

Thus, in overall context, this theory occupies the same place within the theory of geological evolution as Darwin's theories of 'natural selection' occupied within the context of biological evolution.

Both 'uniformitarianism' and 'natural selection' are someone's 'best guesses' as to the mechanism by which evolution (geological and biological, respectively) takes place.

But, there are some significant differences between these two 'best guesses'.

First, there is the difference between the geologists saying, 'If it isn't happening now, it never did', and the biologists insisting that, 'Just because we don't see it happening now, doesn't mean that it did not happen earlier'.

This significant difference between the approaches of geology and biology as to how to determine the past from the present, is rather an instructive anomaly, when one thinks about it for a bit.

Biological and geological evolution are kindred theories, in that they both are a part of the overall theory of general evolution. (If by evolution, all we mean is change, then there is no question that the Earth has 'evolved' - changed).

Yet, with respect to the mechanism by which such change has taken place, they take totally contradictory stances with regard to what we do, and do not, find happening in current times. The biological  theory tries to ignore  what is not happening today, and the geological  theory insists upon basing itself  on what is not happening today.

The second major difference between the two, is that uniformitarianism has better evidence to support it as being the answer to the question of 'how' the Earth evolved than Darwin's guess ever had. (For that evidence, we refer the reader to any good textbook on geology. The theory certainly doesn't need our help here, and, those who are convinced of its "factuality" will no doubt do a better job of presenting it than we who aren't quite so convinced.)

But, uniformitarianism, as it is commonly accepted and propounded, also carries with it, at least implicitly, and usually explicitly, the additional principle of gradual  change, little by little, over thousands, even millions, of years.

After all, this is how erosion, glaciation, and continental drift work as we see them in operation today - gradually.

And the changes caused by earthquakes and floods, as calamitous as they might be to the people affected by them, are actually quite minor within the overall context of planetary change.

So, uniformitarianism not only asserts that if it isn't happening now, it never happened, but also that all significant change has been gradual; never sudden.

And, it is at this point that this theory gets into trouble with the FACTS.

(If uniformitarianism didn't make the extreme, all or nothing, claims just referred to, it wouldn't be nearly so much an element of this Distractor as it is. There is validity to it. Just not nearly as much as its propronents insist upon).

ALTERNATIVES TO UNIFORMITARIAN EVOLUTION

CATASTROPHISM

In geology, there are many, many observable instances which would, if looked at without any preconceived theoretical notions, indicate that the Earth has undergone sudden and cataclysmic changes, wherein it has literally been shaken to its very foundations, and maybe even turned upside down.

Theories based upon the acceptance of such cataclysmic changes in the past are usually termed 'Catastrophism'.

There are indications of gargantuan meteorite strikes, or perhaps even cometary strikes, on the Earth's surface. There are indications of the total reversal of the Earth's magnetic field (as though it were turned upside down). There are marine fossils found in high mountains and deserts, and boulders where they don't belong, none of which uniformitarianism explains very well (unless one is already convinced that it is the only answer, and any contradictory evidence is simply irrelevant). And there are many more anomalies that current theory at best does a poor job of explaining, and that catastrophism provides, if not a better answer, at least as good an answer.

Although the thought of such cataclysmic changes may not be as beautiful and appealing to the more esthetic aspects of our minds, the evidence indicating it is just as prevalent, and just as persuasive, as is the evidence for gradual uniformitarianism.

There are several such theories.

(See the works by Immanuel Velikovsky, circa 1950s, as listed in our bibliography and in library indices).

Velikovsky has not been well received by geologists and astronomers, he being neither. (Carl Sagan, the renowned and well respected astronomer, during the 1990s conducted a public symposium inviting all new theories and ideas about astronomical science to be brought forth and given a fair and unbiased hearing - a truly laudable, non-Swindlous approach - with the specific exception of two: 'flat earth' theories, and 'Velikovskian Catastrophism'.).

And there are obvious errors in some of what he says.

But, his basic thrust is not nearly so off base as the vehemence of his detractors would seem to indicate.

Indeed, there are now respected astronomers and geologists propounding their own theories of catastrophism, who simply ignore their debt to Velikovsky for having broken the ice as to the whole concept.

But then, Velikovsky wasn't an astronomer or geologist, and who but one of them could possibly have anything intelligent to say on the subject? (The Need For 'Experts'?!)

(And, of course, now, there has been Shoemaker-Levy as discussed in the 2003 Update at the beginning of this section).

And now, before finally closing out the entire subject of evolution, biological, geological or otherwise, there is one final subject which needs to be touched on.

BIBLICAL CREATIONISM

It is critical to recognize that by bringing the theory of evolution into serious question, we do not mean to imply that 'Biblical Creationism' is somehow substantiated by way of default.

After all, Creationism, itself, is nothing more than just another theory (hypothesis? conjecture?), based upon a preconceived acceptance of a certain interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible as "fact".

There is not only no more proof of Creationism than there is of evolution, other than the Bible there isn't even any evidence for it.

Even the more current theories of catastrophism in no way tend to support Creationism.

Catastrophism merely postulates sudden and catastrophic changes in the Earth and in species of life. It does not in any way show, or even suggest, that the cause of these cataclysms was the direct intervention of the God of Israel in the affairs and lives of men.

Indeed, either theory, Evolution or Creationism, ultimately rests on BELIEF. There is no proof  of either of them. If we accept either one, we do so, in the final analysis, as a matter of FAITH, whether we recognize this FACT or not.

And, equally important, we are not limited in having to choose just between one or the other of these two.

There are other alternatives than just these two. In some respects, catastrophism is such an alternative.

And there may well be others yet, if not now, then sometime in the future.

And that is the whole point  of this discussion!

There could be, right this moment, yet another theory, crying out in the wilderness for our attention; a theory even better and more provable than any theory we have so far discussed. And, yet, we would not hear its cry, or give it any attention, let alone credence, because we are convinced that we already "know" the "facts" by way of our currently accepted theory. (As was the case with theories of cometary/meteoric strikes prior to Shoemaker-Levy).

This is Erroneous "knowing".

And this is precisely how this form of IGNORANCE operates at the most fundamental levels of our ways of thinking and our BELIEFS about "reality", so as to create and maintain the Great Swindle.

Astronomers and cosmologists now teach the 'big bang' theory as being the process by which the physical universe came into being.

This theory holds that all of the physical matter in existence in the entire universe was once all together in a relatively tiny ball. Something caused that little ball to explode, or expand very quickly, and the universe has been expanding, as a result of that initial explosion, ever since. All the galaxies and stars that exist are continually moving away from one another, and the universe is constantly expanding as a result of that outward motion.

Although it boggles the mind to try to picture just what it is that the universe is expanding into if there isn't something already there to receive it, there are some significant observable indications which would seem to support this theory.

But, as far as being FACT, this theory is no more proven than are any of the theories of evolution. It is still just a theory, and the better astronomers will acknowledge this.

A major tool in astronomy is the spectroscope - a device which breaks light, or other electromagnetic waves, down into it's component parts (much like moist air or a prism breaks light down into a spectrum or a 'rainbow').

Another major tool is the phenomenon called the Doppler effect. Just as sound waves change in pitch depending on whether an object is approaching or receding from us (such as a train's whistle), light and radio waves, in their own way, do the same thing.

With light and radio waves, this change in 'pitch' can't be heard of course, but it can be detected, by way of a spectroscope.

Just as a train whistle has a higher pitch when approaching and a lower pitch when receding, so a light emitting object shows, on the spectroscope, a shift to the higher frequency (toward the violet end of the spectrum) when approaching, and a shift toward the lower (red) end of the spectrum when retreating from us.

And, it is this 'red shift' that is a basic cornerstone of the 'big bang' theory. Because, every star, galaxy, quasar, (everything ) beyond our galaxy, exhibits such a red shift on our spectroscopes.

And, if such a spectroscopic red shift means what we think it means, everything in the universe is not only moving away from us, but everything is moving away from everything else in the universe as well.

In short, the universe is expanding.

And in addition, we find that the further away from us an object appears to be, the more  of a red shift it shows. Which seems logically to indicate that the further away the object is, the faster  it is moving away from us.

This is the major cornerstone of the 'big bang' theory. There are other, complementary, items of evidence for it, but, take away the red shift, and the theory falls.

Well it isn't likely that the red shift is going to disappear. It is always there, and its existence is well demonstrated. And the Doppler effect, of which the red shift is a manifestation, is also well demonstrated.

But, as well demonstrated as these phenomena are, as the cornerstone for the 'big bang' theory there are some cracks in it.

Astronomers seldom discuss these cracks, but if they should ever widen, the cornerstone of the 'big bang' will crumble, and along with it, the theory itself.

Firstly, as some astronomers themselves seriously question, does the fact that an instrument here on Earth shows a red shift, necessarily mean that the Doppler effect caused that shift? Just because a chicken can lay an egg, does that necessarily mean that all eggs are laid by chickens?

When we consider that astronomers, stuck on a tiny little speck called Earth, and with nothing more than their instruments, as marvelous as those instruments may be, are trying, from their isolated vantage point, to understand the nature of the entire cosmos, the question just asked is not outlandish. Indeed, it is a fundamentally important question.

And, given the limitations of our confined vantage point, it is not a farfetched analogy to compare the situation of our astronomers with that of an inhabitant on the small toe of our foot, trying to understand not only the entire body, but the concealed internal organs and the very brain itself.

If that toe inhabitant could never leave the toe so as to get a broader view, just how accurate could his conclusions be, no matter how marvelous his instruments and theories might seem to him?

In short, could some, or much, of the red shift be due to something, as yet not clearly identified, other than the Doppler effect?

Some astronomers are asking that question. And some are even proposing hypotheses as to what that something else might be.

And if that should turn out to be the case, what would be the impact on the 'big bang' theory? Well, it could easily find its new residence in a rest home (or a cocked hat).

Another problem with the red shift as evidence of the 'big bang' presents itself when one considers the implications of the speed of light and how it relates to distance, as propounded by the theory of relativity.

In essence, since light has a finite speed, the further out we look, the further back in time we are seeing. Light emitted from an object one light year away, takes one year to get to us. Or, conversely, what we 'see' of that object today, is not the way it is now, but the way it was a year ago.

When we take this "fact" of relativity, and mix it with the "fact" indicated by spectroscopic 'red shifts' that the further away an object is the faster it is moving away from us, what do we get?

Well, the author gets a conundrum; a paradox. (And the pitying looks of those who can't understand why he can't understand how it all makes such perfect sense).

If the further out we look, the further back in time we see, and if the universe is expanding from a smaller to a larger ball, why is it that when we look the furthest back in time (ie., the furthest away), that what we find is the universe at its maximal expansion, rather than the smaller ball it used to be?

Expansion means going from smaller yesterday to bigger today (doesn't it?). Yet, when we look at yesterday, we find not only bigger, but big as the biggest as we know it to be.

So, is the 'big bang' theory a FACT?

And, yet, how often is it presented to us, and how many of us blithely accept it, as being a "fact"?

And, more importantly, in how many ways would our personal views of the "reality" of the universe, and our personal selves within it, and of the purpose, if any, of life, change, if we were to discover that this theory is totally off the mark?

This theory, if accepted as "fact", may have more of a direct and personal impact on us, and on our lives, than we realize.

The atomic theory of the structure of physical matter holds that all physical matter, when broken down into its essence, consists of little 'building blocks' which are all exactly alike, and are all made up of exactly the same 'stuff'.

Indeed, the very term 'atom' is supposed to describe one of those basic, irreducible 'building blocks'.

The original theory of the atom was exploded (literally, in White Sands, N.M.) when it was demonstrated that the atom, itself, could be split, or broken down, into even more basic elements which scientists have named electrons, protons and neutrons.

But, this circumstance, alone, didn't disprove the atomic theory, itself. It just showed that we hadn't found the basic building block we thought we had when we found what we had earlier called the atom.

But, then again, scientific research has recently been finding that the electrons, neutrons and protons, themselves, can be broken down even further.

And, in breaking them down, what is science finding?

Nothing!

At least 'nothing' in any concrete, physical meaning of the term.

Current scientific experiments and observations tend to indicate that if electrons and neutrons consist of anything at all, that 'anything' is pure, non-physical energy (or something 'like' energy).

In other words, a six-foot thick lead wall, when broken down into its basic structure, has no physical substance to it whatsoever. The lead is made up of atoms; the atoms are made up of electrons and neutrons; and the electrons and neutrons are made up of, well, pure energy (or something like pure energy).

If, as these observations seem to imply, the atomic theory of matter has no more substance to it than the atom itself, and there simply is no basic physical building block in matter, would that have a direct impact on the way you view reality?

Would that cause you to seriously re-think your current assumptions as to what is and is not "real"; what is 'substance' and what is not; what is 'concrete' and what isn't; what is "realistic" and 'practical' and what is 'illusory' and 'fantasy'?

Isaac Newton 'discovered' gravity, and showed that it is the force of attraction between physical bodies which keeps us from falling off the Earth, keeps the Moon circling around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun, and holds the whole universe together.

That is a FACT, right?

Well, not exactly.

That was (and is) a theory.

In scientific circles today, Newton's theory of gravity has been displaced (well, somewhat) by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

The heretofore 'proven' theorems of Euclidean geometry have now been reduced in their applicability by non-Euclidean systems of geometry,(eg., Reimann's system) which contradict Euclid's theorems, and, yet, which are 'provably' just as 'correct'.

The shortest distance between two points is not a straight line but a curved one.

Did you "know" that? Do you BELIEVE it?

Well, there is a non-Euclidean theorem which says just that, and which is provable with as much certainty as that which supports the Euclidean theorem which insists upon the answer as being a straight line.

Does becoming aware of this have any impact on how you view "reality" around you in your daily life?

Sigmund Freud revolutionized our thinking about the human mind by calling it a psyche, and his theories attributing to it the 'id', the 'ego' and the 'super-ego'. He fathered the school of thought which underlies psychoanalysis as a method for treating mental aberration.

Yet, all of this is theory (hypothesis?).

And, in some fundamental aspects, his own, later students have seriously revised Freud's theories, due to a lack of FACTUAL basis for them, and, indeed, FACTUAL disproof  of them.

How many of us are aware of this?

And, while some of us are sceptical, even cynical, about the field of psychiatry, how many of us willingly place ourselves in the hands of psychiatrists, who treat us, not according to proven FACTS, but according to whatever theory might happen to be in vogue at the moment?

This concludes our listing and discussions of those theories which, when accepted as "fact" rather than as simply being the theories they are, make up the primary ingredients of this Grand Distractor within the Great Swindle.

But despite all that we have said here, we do not mean to down play the value of any of these theories, as theories, or the value of theories in general.

Such theories as these, and theories in general, play a vital role in providing structure to our thinking, without which we might find ourselves in total mental chaos.

And, they play a major role in providing us with the means by which we come closer and ever closer to the actual REALITY of the universe in which we live. If we never had any theories at all, it is entirely possible we wouldn't even be close to having the amount of knowledge about existence that we have now. And, if we don't continue developing theories, we might very well stop learning anything further.

So, we do not condemn theories. We applaud them.

But, to accept any theory as though it were "fact", is to "know" something about "reality" which we don't truly KNOW.

If the theory should turn out to be wrong, as theories have a nasty habit of doing, then the "reality" we have "known" under that theory will turn out to be wrong as well.

The important point is to recognize this Grand Distractor for what it is, and to resist elevating any theory into "fact".

All of these theories have been, and some continue to be, valid and useful as what they are - theories - and serve a useful function as such. If we do not make more out of them than what they are, they can do no harm, and can do much good.

And, if we feel the need to adopt some theory, we are free to CHOOSE among any of them, or, and this is critical, we are equally free to discard all of them and to choose some other theory, or to choose no theory at all.

But, when we fall prey to the tendency to turn theory into "fact" this Grand Distractor begins to function in full force, and contributes directly and substantially as an element in the Great Swindle, by which we are all victimized.