None so blind. Part 2

Today the scientific establishment universally accepts that dinosaurs slid into extinction as a result of an asteroid attack. But when the idea was first floated in 1980 in the paper "Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction" (Alvarez et al, Science, 6th June, 1980), its authors were met with howls of derision. Ever since Charles Lyell, the "father of modern geology", wrote his famous Principles of Geology around 1830, earth scientists have been totally committed to Lyell's dogma that everything in the geological record can be explained by processes we see occurring today, and that they have always occurred at the same rate as today. Since asteroids are not striking earth today, they never have. End of story. The cause of the demise of the saurs must be sought in an interplay of familiar processes over long periods of time. Even after the evidence the paper's authors predicted would be found had been found (a worldwide layer of enriched iridium in strata contemporaneous with dinosaur extinction), many scientists still would not accept the idea of collision with an extraterrestrial body.

Perhaps we should commend the foot draggers for their caution. Those who seek truth of any kind ought not to jump on every passing bandwagon. But here's the rub. To a degree few are willing to admit, Lyell's ideas were of the bandwagon kind themselves. Yes, most phenomena of the past can be explained by processes we see today, but by no means all. Evidence has long abounded that much in the geological record cannot be explained by recourse to current mechanisms and rates (rapid, large changes in sea level, and drumlins, to name but a couple). Above all, the geological evidence that mass extinctions had occurred very rapidly a number of times in history is overwhelming.

But we human beings have a psychological (?spiritual?) problem - we tend to filter out any evidence, no matter how powerful, of "inconvenient truths". Religious folks don't have proprietary rights over this proclivity. (See None so blind. Pt. 1.) Rational-minded scientists succumb, too. Lyell's concept of uniformity, so helpful so often, has morphed into a tenet of faith that has hindered progress almost as much as it has helped. As Michael Benton explains,

[Charles Lyell] was the author of an influential textbook. which achieved iconic status and is still regarded by most people as one of the founding volumes of geology. And yet this epochal volume contains some unbelievable nonsense among its good material. For instance, Lyell wrote that if temperatures were to increase worldwide, ferns and other primitive plants might clothe the land, and [to quote Lyell]

Then might those genera of animals return, of which the memorials are preserved in the ancient rocks of our continents. The huge iguanodon might reappear in the woods, and the

ichthyosaur in the sea, while the pterodactyle might flit again through umbrageous groves of tree-ferns.

In his Principles, Lyell makes it clear that he sees groups of plants and animals as eternal. They come and go simply in response to physical conditions on the earth. This seems incredible, but Lyell was not to be disputed in the 1830s and 1940s. Extraordinary as his comments might seem, most geologists accepted them. Perhaps in private they doubted his views, but they did not speak out in public ( When Life Nearly Died, p. 57-58).

Benton ties resistance to the Alvarezes' paper to Lyell's influence. Scientists' reluctance to accept "the reality of mass extinctions and catastrophes" led to a situation that must now cause many scientists great embarrassment:

The proponents of catastrophe and sudden mass extinction were consistently regarded as lunatics. The extinction-deniers were the level-headed, careful scientists (p. 71).

No, we cannot pat the scientists on the back for caution in such cases. Truth is, they were denying the obvious direction the evidence was taking them. Lyell's "steady-as-she-goes", wed with Darwin's evolution theory, meant that, "Darwinian paleontologists of the latter half of the nineteenth century followed the master in saying nothing about dinosaur extinction. Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95), wrote a number of articles about dinosaurs, but never discussed their extinction" (p. 75). Don't rock the boat.

This same self-inflicted blindness meant that for decades earth scientists rejected the obvious - the famous Meteor Crater, aka Barringer Crater (see pic above), was created by meteoritic impact. Most put its origin down to volcanic activity, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Look at the picture! The same uniformitarian bias led geologists to ridicule the evidence presented in 1923 by one Harlen Betz that a monstrous flood without modern analogue had once ravaged the "Channeled Scablands" of Washington State. The evidence included potholes - carved out by water rolling rocks around and around - that were acres in extent! His two papers presenting the plain evidence were immediately attacked because, "In the geological community, floods and catastrophes were out of vogue as significant agents of topographic change" (see "The Great Columbia Flood ".) When invited to speak on the subject, his colleagues, "took turns bashing the theory". But he was right. And the evidence was plain.

Non-believers are just as prone to wear blinkers as believers. Hey. They will try to tell you that galaxies, stars, planets, plants, eggs, camels, host-manipulating parasites and the human brain have their origin in a gigantic explosion that just. well. happened. Oh that such blindness should be.