Selection # 1: The Wandering Hippopotamus

This selected entry was originally published here on May 18, 2014.

Scott:  My name is Scott Paton.  I am talking today with Allan Colston.  He is the author of the book “The Last Days of Tolemac”.  This is a book dealing with prophecy.

For those listeners who may be new to this topic, this Podcast is another in the series “Signs of the Times”.  Hello Allan and welcome to the Podcast.

Hello Scott. It’s good to be with you again.

Scott:  In our last discussion you referred to the American philosopher George Santayana, who wrote that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

That’s correct Scott. I also went on to say that our world has suffered from numerous global catastrophes in the past, and that these disasters have wiped out entire civilizations that have now vanished from the historical record.

But the reason why we no longer remember these earlier disasters is not because we lack the evidence, but because modern historians have deliberately chosen to ignore them.

Scott:  But why would historians do such a thing?

That’s an excellent question Scott. On the face of it this would seem to make no sense at all. But that is why the work of Thomas Kuhn is so important, and why I have devoted so much time to his research in recent discussions.

As Kuhn pointed out in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, all science is practised in a paradigm. And he was not just referring here to natural sciences like astronomy, cosmology, physics and chemistry, but also to things like geology, biology, history and archeology.

What he meant by this is that every scientific discipline is based on a certain set of beliefs that are considered to be established facts. And because these beliefs are considered to be proven beyond doubt, they are no longer questioned.

But the problem that Kuhn identified, and which formed the major part of his book, was that within the history of science over the last 400 years, there have been numerous examples where these “proven” beliefs have later been found to be wrong.

It is these mistakes of the past which have led to complete revisions of past data, in ways that have led to enormous upheavals that Kuhn called scientific revolutions. And that is what we are seeing in the world of science today.

Scott:  Why do you say that Allan?

Well Scott, as I have indicated in my last two Blog posts, the Theory of Evolution set out by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species has been hailed for over a century as one of the most complete scientific theories ever conceived, and is today regarded by science as a proven fact of nature.

Unfortunately, it also happens to suffer from one small defect.

The problem is that over the course of the 155 years that have passed since his book was first published, no evidence has been found to support Darwin’s central thesis, which is that all species have evolved from a single progenitor.

In spite of an exhaustive search of the fossil record, there is no evidence to show that one species has changed into a completely new species, as a result of an infinite series of tiny changes that have been passed on from one generation to another….Nada…. None!

Scott:  So are you saying that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is wrong?

Absolutely. As I pointed out in an earlier Blog post, the basic principles of Darwin’s theory have now been found to be unfounded.

Now I am not saying that the idea of evolution itself is wrong. The fossil record makes it clear that different species have lived on the earth in forms of ever increasing complexity, over periods of time that span many hundreds of millions of years.

There is also no question that every species undergoes a struggle for survival, and that it is the strong who are best equipped to survive. It is also obvious that every species has a remarkable capacity to adapt to changes in its environment.

Furthermore, as Darwin correctly pointed out, every species can adapt to these changes in environment by changing their physical characteristics. And these changes can be passed on from one generation to another.

In fact, every aspect of Darwin’s acclaimed theory of evolution is correct – except for the most important one, and that is this.

One species does not change over time into another species. As the evidence now conclusively proves, no species ever has. And from this we may safely deduce that no species ever will.

Scott:  So Allan, why do you think that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution still continues to be taught?

Well Scott, it continues to be taught for the reason that Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his book. It has become an entrenched part of our current scientific paradigm, and to question this now would be to challenge the validity of the paradigm itself.

To do so would be heresy, as well as being professional suicide. No biologist would have a hope of attaining recognition or status within the official ranks of science today, if he or she publicly challenged Darwin’s theory.

And so it is with so many of the other “facts” of science. Those who try to challenge established ideas are denied space to publish their work in official journals, or to defend themselves when their characters are impugned, and the results of their research are rejected.

Or like Velikovsky, who chose to publish his unconventional ideas in books which subsequently became international best sellers, they are personally ostracised and excommunicated from their particular discipline of science.

So Darwin’s Theory of Evolution continues to be taught today for the simple reason that science doesn’t have a better theory to replace it. And because the prospect of going back to the Biblical idea of Creationism, or its later cousin called Intelligent Design, fills them with horror and dismay.

But to get back to your original question Scott, of why historians would deliberately choose to ignore evidence of past cataclysms, I need to point out something else that is closely linked to Darwin and his Theory of Evolution.

Scott:  Please carry on Allan. I find this fascinating.

When Darwin was 22 years old, he set sail on HMS Beagle on a journey that was to last five years and take him all around the world. It was while he was on board the ship that the Captain gave him a copy of a book which has just been published.

The name of the book was Principles of Geology, and it was written by one of the most influential scientists of his day, and a man whose work still forms the basis of modern geology. His name was Charles Lyell.

Lyell was an interesting man. Born in Scotland into a family of means, he was educated at Oxford University, where he graduated with an M.A. degree in 1821. After graduating, he decided to take up Law, and for a while practised as an attorney.

A few years later, however, Lyell began to suffer from failing eyesight. He therefore decided to abandon his legal career, and turn instead to geology, which had been a long-time hobby of his, and make this his new full-time profession.

One might suppose that a man with failing eyesight would have been better served by pursuing matters of law, rather than the demands of fieldwork in an exacting profession. But in Lyell’s case, it was a decision that would lead to personal fame and subsequent knighthood.

What made such a profound impact on the young Darwin, and played a leading part in the development of his theory of Natural Selection, was the fact that Charles Lyell was a staunch believer in the concept of Uniformitarianism.

Scott: What exactly was Uniformitarianism?

Well Scott, it was the idea that the earth was shaped in the past by the same forces that we see at work today. In fact the subtitle of Principles of Geology was: “An attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface by reference to causes now in operation“.

While he was a student at Oxford, Lyell had attended lectures given by William Buckland, who believed equally firmly that the earth had been afflicted by numerous catastrophes in the past.

However, Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland’s ideas, especially when he tried to link the concept of catastrophism with the Bible, by using the story of Noah’s flood as an example.

For Lyell, the present was the key to the understanding of the past, and there was no need to introduce references to God, the Bible, or any other supernatural source, in order to explain the changes that had taken place on the earth in the past.

In due course Lyell’s version of geology came to be known as Uniformitarianism, because of his fierce insistence that the processes that alter the earth’s surface act in a uniform manner, and that they take place imperceptibly slowly.

His work influenced Darwin deeply, so that when he later came to write his Origin of Species, he described the process of Natural Selection as a kind of biological uniformitarianism, where evolution took place in front of our eyes, but at a pace that was much too slow for us to recognise.

There was, however, one supreme irony in all of this. In spite of the simplicity and elegance of Lyell’s theory of uniformity, he was faced with the same embarrassing problem that later confronted Charles Darwin.

Scott: What was that?

The short answer is that Lyell’s theory wasn’t supported by the evidence. This embarrassing fact was so obvious that Lyell pointed it out himself in his book. In the 12th edition of Principles of Geology he wrote:

“It has been truly observed that when we arrange the known fossiliferous formations in chronological order, they constitute a broken and defective series.”

Then after listing even more anomalies that were apparent in the stratification record, and which also were in conflict with his theory, Lyell went on to conclude:

“These violations of continuity are so common as to constitute in most regions the rule rather than the exception, and they have been considered by many geologists as conclusive in favour of sudden revolutions in the inanimate and animate world.”

When Charles Darwin arrived in South America and began to examine the fossiliferous formations in that part of the world, he found even more dramatic evidence of earth’s catastrophic past. As he published in his Journal of Researches:

“It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly, it must have swarmed with great monsters: now we find mere pigmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races.”

“Certainly, no fact in the long history of the world is so startling as the wide and repeated exterminations of its inhabitants.”

“What, then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring’s Straits, we must shake the entire framework of the globe.”

Scott:  So how did Charles Lyell deal with this problem?

Well Scott, you’re not going to believe this. Since he couldn’t deny the evidence that lay all around him, and which contradicted his theory of slow, imperceptible change, Lyell chose to fall back on a proven strategy that had served him well as a practising attorney.

That strategy can best be summarised as follows. When the facts support your argument, then emphasize the facts. But when they don’t, then ignore the facts completely, and question instead the integrity of all those who believe them.

Clearly, Lyell was not the sort of person to allow embarrassing facts to stand in the way of his personal theory. So instead of amending his theory to match the facts, as one would expect from an ethical scientist, he chose instead to ignore everything that contradicted his theory.

In fact he went even further. He blithely dismissed his critics as ignorant men who didn’t know what they were talking about, and, furthermore, were unaware of their own ignorance. As he wrote in Principles:

“It appeared clear that the earlier geologists had not only a scant acquaintance with existing changes (caused by wind, flowing water, etc.), but they were singularly unconscious of the amount of their ignorance.”

Scott: I’m absolutely amazed, Allan. I can’t believe he could get away with it.

Exactly Scott. One can’t imagine anyone getting away with such a thing today. But get away with it he did. In fact, in certain cases he even resorted to parody as a way of shrugging off facts that contradicted his theory.

Perhaps the best example of this was the matter of the wandering hippopotamus.

Scott: What was that all about?

Well Scott, it seems that in a cave at Settle in west Yorkshire, England, located some 1450 feet above sea level, were found the remains of a variety of animals that included mammoth, rhinoceros, bison, hyena and hippopotamus.

During excavations, it became clear that the floor of the cavern was covered in sand containing foreign pebbles, which indicated that it had been submerged beneath the sea at an earlier time.

The question that perplexed people at the time was how the bones ended up together in a single cavern, especially when none of the animals found in the cave had ever lived in the British Isles.

To most geologists of that time, this seemed like clear evidence that the earth had undergone some great catastrophe in the past. Not so Charles Lyell. He dismissed such an idea, and offered up in its place the following explanation in his book Antiquity of Man:

“The geologist … may freely speculate on the time when herds of hippopotami issued from North African rivers, such as the Nile, and swam northward in summer along the coasts of the Mediterranean, or even occasionally visited islands near the shore. Here and there they may have landed to graze or browse, tarrying awhile, and afterwards continuing their course northward.

“Others may have swum in a few summer days from rivers in the south of Spain or France to the Somme, Thames, or Severn (rivers in Wales and England), making timely retreat to the south before the snow and ice set in.”

This bizarre scenario may have fobbed off other lily-livered geologists of that time, but when Immanuel Velikovsky came across this passage in the course of his researches, he could not resist this sardonic response which he included in his book Earth in Upheaval:

“Hippopotami not only travelled during the summer nights to England and Wales, but also climbed hills to die peacefully among other animals in caves, and the ice, approaching softly, tenderly spread little pebbles over the travellers resting in peace, and the land with its hills and caverns in a slow lullaby movement sank below the level of the sea and gentle streams caressed the dead bodies and covered them with rosy sand.”

Scott: Well Allan, I’ve got to hand it to you. That really is quite a hoot.

Well Scott, it would be if it weren’t such a sad reflection on the true state of affairs in science today.

Unfortunately, the moral of this story is that for almost two centuries geologists have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by the theory of Uniformitarianism, and have ignored the facts that blatantly contradict this theory.

And instead of being the recipient of all the high honours that were conferred upon him, including a knighthood, Charles Lyell should have been run out of town by the nearest sheriff for being the scoundrel that he was.

In fact it gets worse. The idea that changes in the surface of the earth have primarily been the result of forces of nature that operate slowly and imperceptibly, has now also been incorporated into the paradigms of History and Archeology.

So references to cataclysmic events that can still be found in historical records are ignored by scholars today. And structural ruins that bear testimony to catastrophic changes in the past, continue to be ignored by archeologists.

They are ignored because the idea of catastrophic change within the recent history of the earth has now been officially expunged from the current paradigm of science. Those few brave souls who still continue to challenge that view are condemned to being mere voices crying in the wilderness.

So Scott, there you have the answer to your question. Historians ignore the evidence of catastrophic events that have occurred in recent times in the history of the earth, because to do otherwise would offend the theory of Uniformitarianism, which has now become part of the official dogma of science.

Scott:  So are you saying there are written records of past disasters that are deliberately being ignored by historians?

Yes Scott there are. Probably no one was better equipped to interpret these ancient records than Immanuel Velikovsky. His brilliant intellect and talent for languages allowed him to delve into records that were written in English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, French, Italian and Spanish.

After spending ten years conducting research at major libraries around the world, Velikovsky went on to write numerous books detailing the evidence that he found.

His most famous work Worlds in Collision was devoted to an analysis of literary sources taken from ancient cultures in all parts of the world. And his book Earth in Upheaval focused on the geological evidence that he found.

In his books Velikovsky produced evidence taken from ancients documents emanating from pre-Columbian America, as well as from China, India, Persia, Babylon, Iceland, Finland, Greece and Rome.

Some of these literary sources are included in my Blog post here

Despite the fact that all of the excerpts taken from these ancient documents were carefully referenced and annotated, historians are content today to dismiss them as mythical stories, rather than as accounts of real events that actually happened.

In my next instalment Scott, I want to draw attention to the way modern archeologists have also chosen to ignore ruins of ancient civilizations that can still be found all over the world, simply because they too do not fit in with the dogma of Uniformitarianism.

Scott: Thanks Allan. This has been another fascinating discussion on the way the history of science has unfolded over the last few centuries.

You have been listening to Allan Colston, author of the book “The Last Days of Tolemac”.  Do join us for our next Podcast in the series titled “Signs of the Times”.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 4th, 2019 at 11:47 am and is filed under Selections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments and pings are closed.