Makin wrote:Evidence is hard to come by, it is largely circumstantial, and there is never enough of it.
--J. Hoover Makin
In the previous posts, I have provided a wide selection of evidence regarding the history of Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. This evidence comes from eminent scientists, the very scientists who participated in both Wegener's day, and those who participated in the more recent so-called revolution of plate tectonics.
I will be basing my argument that with regard to the question of continental drift upon the numerous citations already provided. It is clear that the statements made by the authors Bain et al. fairly and accurately represent the actual facts of this history. Their statements regarding the history of continental drift are supported by the authors above, and I have gone out of my way to gather evidence from other sources than they used themselves (i.e., Le Grand, who supports the same claims as the authors above), and all conclusively show that Bain et al. got their facts right.
The first fact to be noted, is the typical arguments being put forth by popular science writers, educators, and from such magazines as the
Skeptical Inquirer and the
Skeptic, tend to repeat each other's arguments, and like our educator above, sometimes get their facts very wrong. Now that is not a problem, but when they insist in repeating their moldy old arguments, "Wegener's theory was rejected because there was no mechanism," which may have been excusable in the early period after the initial review of Wegener's theory in the US, but is no longer tenable or even credible given the vast overwhelming amount of historical material refuting this claim that has been forthcoming since the rise of plate tectonics, and which continues to come out even to this day, they have become dogmatists, and stagnant pseudo-skeptics unwilling to self-correct in the face of new facts and evidence. Hardly paradigms for true science, so who then, are they speaking for?
The second fact to be noted is the manner in which Gardner misrepresents the statements and meaning of Bain's article. Gardner does not quote Bain's article in context in GCM, because if he did, his misquoting and misrepresentation would be obvious, and he would have been unable to distort Bain's meaning for his own argumentative purpose. I have quoted the entire text from Bain's article which Gardner was reviewing, so that the full context can be compared to Gardner's characterization of it.
In a 35 page booklet written by Richard Bain, Ken Glasziou, Matt Neibaur, and Frank Wright are the following comments regarding the
Urantia Book’s statements on continental drift:
Bain et al. wrote:The Urantia Book states unequivocally that all land on earth was joined together in one huge continent that commenced to break up 750 million years ago, and was followed by a long period of continental drifting during which land bridges were repeatedly formed and broken. The story of the movements of the continents and concomitant effects upon developing life is described in considerable detail in the book. (Bain 6)
The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s revealed that the Earth’s crust is being melted and forced upwards resulting in ocean floor spreading, hence continental drift. However the theory of continental drift did not become generally accepted in North America until the mid 1960’s (see H.E. Le Grand).
Until recently, the date of commencement of break up on the single continent was placed at about 200 million years ago. Currently this date has been revised and pushed back to between about 600 and 800 million years ago as stated in The Urantia Book. (Bain 6)
— Bain, R., & Glasziou, K., et. al.
The Science Content of The Urantia Book (SCUB).
See the following for their complete statements:
http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/bain/bain.pdf
Later in the same booklet an expanded version of the above comments on continental drift is provided:
Bain et al. wrote:CONTINENTAL DRIFT
The Urantia Book states quite categorically that all land on earth was originally a single continent that subsequently broke up, commencing 750 million years ago (p. 663), followed by a long period of continental drifting during which land bridges were repeatedly formed and broken. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)
Wegener’s theory
The idea of continental drift was mooted in the 19th century and first put forward as a comprehensive theory by Wegener in 1912. It was not well accepted, being classified as pseudoscience. For example Rollin T. Chamberlin wrote in 1928 just 6 years prior to receipt of the Urantia Papers: "Wegener’s theory in general is of the foot-less type ... It plays a game in which there are few restrictive rules." (Bain et al. 1991: 15)
Chamberlin went on to list 18 points that he considered were destructive of the drift hypothesis, and actually began his book with, "Can we call geology a science when there exists such a difference of opinion in fundamental matters as to make it possible for such a theory as this to run wild." The theory remained discredited in the opinion of most geologists until the 1960’s. I can still remember attending a geology lecture at Sydney University in 1951 when the lecturer dismissed the concept of continental drift with the comment that there were no known forces that could wrench continents apart. The story of the earlier conflict and later acceptance of continental drift has been recently recorded by science historian H. E. Le Grand. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)
New evidence
The change in attitude by geologists, particularly in America, was initiated by the careful bathymetric, paleomagnetic, and seismological surveys in the region of long mountain ranges on the ocean floors, such as the mid-Atlantic ridge that stretches from Iceland to Antarctica. During the 1960’s, geophysical surveys of the ocean floor revealed that the rock from the earth’s mantle is being melted, then forced upwards resulting in sea floor spreading. This upwelling would be expected to push the continents apart, and thus provided the missing evidence for a physical mechanism that could bring about continental drift. Gradually the term continental drift was replaced by a new terminology and today it is known universally as plate tectonics. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)
Against the current!
The Urantia Papers that mention continental drift were presented in 1934, and published in book form in 1955. The writers of the papers could not have been unaware of the very tenuous nature of the theory and would have known that it was held in disrepute by most American geologists. Hence, unless these writers had access to pre-existing knowledge, they would appear to have been doing a very foolish thing in going against strongly-held scientific opinion. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)
The Urantia Book is at variance with many published estimates of geological time, for instance for the Carboniferous and Devonian periods where the discrepancy may be about 100 million years. In some areas there is good agreement, for example the Book (p.683) talks of the disappearance of land bridges between the Americas and Europe and Africa in the era between 160 and 170 million years ago, and an article in Scientific American [June 1979 issue]4, places this break at 165 million years ago. However land bridges connected these continents again at later times via Greenland, Iceland, and the Bering Straits, and also connected South America to Australia via Antarctica, and directly to Africa (Urantia Book, pp. 694, 695, 698; Science and the Citizen: The Migrating Marsupial. Scientific American, January 1983, 248(1): 73). (Bain et al. 1991: 15)
Time of break-up of continents
A most remarkable aspect of The Urantia Book accounts is the statement that the breakup of the supercontinent commenced 750 million years ago. Wegener placed it at 200 million years ago. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica’s ’Science and Technology’ presented what was then purported to be an up-to-date series of maps depicting the progress of continental drift from 50 to 200 million years ago which is at variance with a similar portrayal in … Scientific American [April 1985 issue] by about 100 million years in aspects of the progression.
Nevertheless, both versions still placed the commencement of continental drift in the vicinity of 200 to 250 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 15-16)
Somewhere around 1980 some geologists were having a rethink about the commencement of continental drift, and in a book entitled 'Genesis', published in 1982, J. Gribbin reported the view that there may have been a pre-existing continent, Pangea 1, roughly 600 million years ago that had broken up into 4 new continents by about 450 million years ago, at the end of the Ordovician age. Then about 200 million years ago, the continents were thought to have converged to form Pangea 2, which quickly broke, first to Laurasia and Gondwanaland, then further breakup occurred at the end of the Cretaceous to give an appearance much like the present world. A different opinion was expressed in an article in Scientific American (1984) 250 (2), 41 which stated the view that a breakup occurred in late Ripherian times between 700 and 900 million years ago, but a 1987 article (Scientific American 256, 94) is more conservative and placed the breakup of Pangea 1 at somewhere near the beginning of the pre-Cambrian, in the order of 600 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
How could it be?
So, 30 years after publication of The Urantia Book with its statements about continental drift and the breakup of a single supercontinent commencing 750 million years ago, Wegener's much maligned theory has now become accepted by virtually all geologists. Furthermore, the date of commencement of the breakup of the original supercontinent that for many, many years was assumed to have started only about 200 million years ago,-has, by virtue of information coming to hand in the 1980’s, now been pushed back to beyond the pre-Cambrian era, and in the vicinity of the time stated in the Urantia Papers in 1934 as 750 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
It is quite impossible to calculate the odds against being right about such a matter 50 or even 30 years ago. Perhaps one chance in a million would be an underestimate. But considering both the predictions regarding neutrinos, the w-particle, the undiscovered strong force, and neutron stars, together with this remarkable statement on both the time of commencement of continental drift and the factuality of its existence, it is exceedingly difficult to do other than to assume that the authors of the Urantia Papers had access to pre-existing knowledge, at least in respect to these topics. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND LAND ELEVATION
The Urantia Book account of the geological history of our planet tells us that following the breakup of the supercontinent about 700 million years ago, there have been repeated cycles of land elevation and submergence. Between approximately 400 and 200 million years ago, the periodicity appears to average very roughly 25 million years, with periods of much more frequent cycling during the Carboniferous and Cretaceous periods. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
Changes in sea level have often been attributed to advance and retreat of the polar ice caps, but this would not appear to account for the movements described in The Urantia Book. More recently a mechanism has been proposed involving the accumulation of heat beneath the great land masses that is thought to cause the elevation, doming, and breakup of continents, and their subsequent rejoining.5 Although the concept has been put forward dominantly to account for transverse movement, it also provides a physical mechanism that could explain the vertical movement described in The Urantia Book account. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
The mechanism proposed indicates a relatively slow build up of heat, but the subsequent blow off can occur in a number of ways, hence considerable deviation from sine wave periodicity would be expected. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
This new theory will be of interest to Urantia Book readers who have been puzzled by its account of the alternate elevation and depression of continents on such a large scale. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
Following is a link to an article by Mark McMenamin that addresses the Urantia Book's statements regarding continental drift, in which he places them in historical context, and notes the 750 Ma date given for the breakup of Rodinia:
http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/mcmenamin/mcmenamin.pdf
I note, McMenamin is a scientist who acknowledges the fact the 750 Ma date was not known as late as 1955, and notes there were other facts unknown as well (for those to whom the facts actually matter see the link above), yet Gardner, who was fully aware of the 750 Ma date purposely ignored it, arguing that Bain's main point was the fact that continental drift was a rejected theory, and that because of this the Urantia Book was "prophetic." This is false; Bain did not make this argument; this is Gardner misquoting and misrepresenting Bain statements to create a "Straw Man" argument. Gardner then goes on to do his little flip-flop, contradicting what he already had stated about Wegner's theory in
Order and Surprise, arguing that continental drift was a "respected" theory, and that Bain et al. got their history wrong. In truth, Gardner was distorting history and twisting truth (he knew the truth, he wrote about it already, and Bain personally informed him of the main point, the 750 Ma date) for his own rhetorical purpose. Bain's characterization of the historical treatment of continental drift is collaborated by all the scientists and historians above, but that was only the backdrop, or context, for the main point, which was the 750 Ma date for the break-up of a supercontinent that was not even known to exist and which could have only been a "wild guess" even in 1955.
Gardner wrote:Consider the way in which the four authors strive to convince readers that the UB (663) exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology....[1] [T]they maintain, Wegener’s theory had been strongly rejected by geologists at the time the UB papers were written.[2] Therefore, they argue, the UB was genuinely prophetic in accepting the theory.[3] (GCM 197)
Unfortunately, the four authors did not trouble to check on the history of Wegener’s guess. In early 1920s, when the first Urantia Book papers were coming through … continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory. Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) first proposed continental drift in a 1912 paper. (GCM 197 )
In 1915 Wegener published The Origins of Continents and Oceans. This 94-page book went through three revised and expanded German editions and was translated into French and English. Nature favorably reviewed the book in 1922.[4] Its theory was supported by many top geologists around the world, especially Holland. Wladimir Köppen, a distinguished German astronomer, was an early convert.[5] Harvard geologist Reginald Daly, South African geologist Alexander du Toit, and Arthur Holmes, of Edinburgh, were among other enthusiastic allies. Du Toit even wrote a book titled Our Wandering Continents, published as late as 1957, that is dedicated to Wegener. As Michael Friedlander says in the chapter on continental drift in his At the Fringes of Science (1994), Wegener’s theory “remained in a state of suspended credibility until after World War II…. For good histories of Wegener’s theory, see Continental Drift (1983), by U. B. Marvin, and Continents in Collision (1983), by Russell Miller.” (GCM 197-8 )[6]
A 1926 symposium on the theory was held in my home town of Tulsa. Its papers (most of them opposing Wegener) were later published as a book, with a long introduction supporting the theory, and a closing essay opposing it. Sir James Jeans, in his popular book Through Space and Time (1934), calls Wegener’s theory “more interesting” than an older theory of continental alteration, “although it [Wegener’s theory] has not yet gained acceptance from scientists.” (GCM 198 )[7]
Opposition to the theory, especially in the United States, did not start to build until the mid-twenties.[8] It culminated in the early fifties … It was in the late fifties that evidence supporting plate tectonics provided for the first time a plausible mechanism for the drift, and opinions favoring the theory were revived. (GCM 198 )
Today's theories about continental drift depart in many ways from both Wegener and the UB. Plates of the earth's crust do not drift on liquid basalt. They are pushed apart by molten rock that wells up from the great depths to solidify and shove the plates. "Seafloor spreading" it is called, a hypothesis proposed by Robert Dietz in 1961. The movement of continents is much slower than Wegener supposed. (GCM 198)[9]
--Martin Gardner (1995) Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. (GCM)
[1] The authors did not use the theory of continental drift as evidence of "foreknowledge." Gardner is misrepresenting the facts, as anyone who reads Bain's actual words above can see. Bain did note the history of continental drift and he did note that it would be against the then currently accepted ideas in the United States, even as late as 1955, to argue in support of the theory. This fact is consistent with the historical facts I have provided independent of Bain or Gardner. Gardner chose to ignore the real point of Bain's article though, which was the timing of the break-up of the continents, and thereby distort and twist the truth of what Bain was really saying and what the real point of his article was. A real scientist, one who recognizes the moral and professional obligation to represent the facts in context and honestly, would note the significant fact of the 750 Ma date that was really the point of Bain's statements, just as McMenamin did in his chapter which included comments on the Urantia Book. Gardner, even after having been personally told by Bain that this was misrepresenting his statements, nevertheless went on to misquote and distort what was actually said.
[2] Another of Gardner's falsehoods; Bain never uses the word "strongly," or anything like it, but he does carefully and accurately represent the historical facts surrounding the response to Wegener's theory in the United States, and its status between its introduction and the 1960s. The historical record shows that Bain got his facts right; Gardner distorted the truth for his own argumentative purpose.
[3] Gardner makes no mention of the 750 Ma date. Why is that? Because it doesn't suit his argumentative rhetorical needs, as it is counter-evidence to his argument. And that is why he did not fully quote Bain's article in context in GCM (required I note by the standards of professional journalism), an article he read and knew full well the real point of which was the fact of the 750 Ma date given for the break-up of the first supercontinent.
[4] This is again, a distortion and misrepresentation of the actual facts. Wegner's book was not published into English until 1924. In the early years prior to its translation in English only a few English reviews were forthcoming, and most of those from the US were overwhelmingly negative.
[5] Here, Gardner distorts the truth that Wegener's theory was rejected on emotional grounds, not scientific fact, overwhelmingly by the US geological community; Wladimir Köppen was Wegner's father-in-law! I guess Gardner just decided not to mention that, so he could keep up this farce that Wegener's theory was "favorably" received and "supported by many top geologists around the world." I note how Gardner downplays the truth about the outright rejection of Wegener's theory by the United States geological community. See Naomi Oreskes' statements in this thread regarding the rejection of Wegener's theory in the US and especially the vitriolic attacks on Wegener witnessed at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) meeting in 1926, which Gardner, also misrepresents.
[6] Apparently, Gardner did not read Marvin, or he overlooked her statement,
"My researches have altered many preconceptions. They have, for example, inspired a profound respect for Alfred Wegener, whose reputation as a scientist still suffers in North America despite some attempts at rehabilitation. [No doubt due to the likes of pseudo-scholars like Gardner.] I have also learned to admire the accomplishments of many an earlier scientists who, working without computers or remote sensing equipment, perceived the planet as a whole in terms very similar to our own. Are not those scientists and detectives most brilliant who deduce the nature of things from the fewest clues? (Marvin 1973: Forward)
"During the interchange between Simpson, du Toit, and Longwell, Bailey Willis entered the fray with his article “Continental Drift: Ein Marchen,” from which we quoted in our introduction. Willis felt that the time had come to call a halt to the use of scientific time, talent, and periodical space for further consideration of this fairy tale. (Marvin 1973: 119)
"Willis was certainly wrong in his judgment, yet little or no new evidence for continental drift was presented between 1935 and 1955. The debate languished, with all but a tiny minority of workers believing the issue was closed for good and all. Continental drift as an idea declined into a state of limbo, not a little disreputable, and perilously close to the status of science fiction." ( Marvin 1973: 119)
Clealy, Marvin does not agree with Gardner; why didn't he report the facts accurately? Perhaps he didn't read Marvin either. It seems Gardner likes to write with absolute confidence about things he hasn't read and posses little real knowledge about.
[7] See my personal communication with Naomi Oreskes regarding Gardner's characterization of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) meeting in 1926.
[8] How ludicrous; the book was not published in English until 1924, so that would mean that "Opposition to the theory" existed right from the start, just as the facts show when viewed in light of the actual histories as told by the scientists and historians I have quoted extensively.
[9] Once again, Gardner shows his ignorance of the history of science, and his propensity to make things up to suit his argumentative needs. Gardner states, the Plates of the earth's crust do not drift on liquid basalt. They are pushed apart by molten rock that wells up from the great depths to solidify and shove the plates. Gardner is obviously unaware of the historical fact that Arthur Holmes proposed the same mechanism that would later come to be called "seafloor spreading." Naomi Oreskes states, "Holmes also argued [1931] that new oceanic crust would be created at the mid-ocean ridges by basalt intrusion and submarine lava flows.... Holmes theory was not vague, it is specific.... Arthur Holmes had proposed a mechanism for creating and destroying oceanic crust, and it was the same mechanism as that later proposed by Harry Hess. In denying Holmes credit for the work he had done, Dietz ironically credited Hess with work he had not done." (Oreskes 1999: 270-271) And Wegener incorporated Holmes work into his own theory as any good scientist would have. This information was available at the time Gardner was writing GCM, but of course, only someone who really cared to fairly represent the facts, and therefore, took the time to do real research would have known this.
Lets do a comparative summary of Gardner’s past and recent statements:
Bain and Gardner wrote:The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s revealed that the Earth’s crust is being melted and forced upwards resulting in ocean floor spreading, hence continental drift. (Richard Bain, Ken Glasziou, et. al., The Science Content of The Urantia Book )
Every devotee of a fringe science should read Kitcher’s pages on Alfred Wegener, whose theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists. (Martin Gardner, (1983) Order and Surprise.)
In his previous statements made in his book
Order and Surprise, Gardner agrees with Bain et al., that Wegener's theory was "long rejected by geologists." This statement is accurate, and supported by the overwhelming body of evidence I have presented above.
But apparently when Gardner decided to review Bain et. al., he changes his tune rather suddenly:
Gardner wrote:Consider the way in which the four authors strive to convince readers that the UB (663) exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology.... [T]hey maintain, Wegener’s theory had been strongly rejected by geologists at the time the UB papers were written. Therefore, they argue, the UB was genuinely prophetic in accepting the theory. (Gardner, GCM 197 )
Unfortunately, the four authors did not trouble to check on the history of Wegener’s guess. In early 1920s, when the first Urantia Book papers were coming through … continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory. (Gardner, GCM 197 )
First, Gardner mischaracterizes Bain's statement by claiming Bain states Wegener's theory was "
strongly rejected by geologists at the time the UB papers were written." Bain actually said, "
The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s," which is a factually true statement in perfect agreement with the statements of the above scientist/historians. Not only does Bain not use the word "strongly," but Gardner himself previously says, "Wegener,
whose theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists," which is exactly what Bain et. al. said!
Then Gardner goes on to claim that "
continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory," which is not only contradicted by his own statement that Wegener's "
theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists," but is refuted by the actual historical record, much of which was available at the time of Gardner's review.
Gardner's remarks raise another very interesting question; how inconsistent is it to accuse Bain et. al. of sloppy work by saying they "
did not trouble to check on the history of Wegener’s guess," when Gardner is 1) contradicting his own words, 2) his flip-flopped position is refuted by the historical record, which means he was too lazy to "check on the history" and get his facts correct, and finally, he refers to Wegener's theory as a "guess," which frankly is ludicrous and could only be made by someone who is ignorant of the actual historical facts.
It is obvious that the ‘four authors’ did a better job of checking the history of Wegener’s hypothesis (which Gardner refers to it as little more than a guess) than Gardner did. Or in light of his statements that the "theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists" in
Order and Surprise, and then his seemingly opposite statement that "continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory" in GCM, that he is less than honest and misrepresents (manipulates) the facts to suite his argumentative needs of the moment.
Bottom line; Bain et al. got their facts right; continental drift was rejected in the United States at the time the papers were being compiled and published, and their assertions accord with reality, unlike Gardner's misrepresentation of the facts for his own rhetorical purposes.
Finally, Gardner's characterization of the "1926 symposium" (which he claims to have read) on continental drift held in the United States is a gross mischaracterization of the actual facts and events that took place, as is evidenced in a personal communication with Naomi Oreskes in which I shared with her the following:
Rob wrote:Gardner attempts to argue that "Opposition to the theory, especially in the United States, did not start to build until the mid-twenties." I don't think Wegener's book was even translated into English until the mid-1920s -- 1924 to be exact -- at which time it received a wider exposure within the United States' scientific community. Response to Wegener I believe was hostile from the beginning once it was seriously discussed by the United States' geological community. Gardner mischaracterizes the tone and degree of opposition of the 1926 symposium, in my opinion, to downplay the negative response to Wegener's theory for his own self-serving argumentative purpose; which apparently is to debunk the claims of Bain et al. regarding statements made in The Urantia Book on continental drift.
Her reply was the following:
Oreskes, personal communication wrote:Your reading of Gardner is correct. Most Americans did not read W. until the 1924 English translation, and then, as you say, the reaction was almost uniformly hostile. The same is true of Tulsa. The book version of the conference is more balanced than the meeting was, because van der Gracht solicited additional papers for the book--from W. himself, Joly, and Molengraaf--all non US. No one in the US except Reginald Daly was really supportive. I think you are quite right: Gardner was trying to make the whole thing seem fairer and calmer than it actually was, which is the same thing Kitcher has done.
Bain and Gardner wrote:Against the current!
The Urantia Papers that mention continental drift were presented in 1934, and published in book form in 1955. The writers of the papers could not have been unaware of the very tenuous nature of the theory and would have known that it was held in disrepute by most American geologists. Hence, unless these writers had access to pre-existing knowledge, they would appear to have been doing a very foolish thing in going against strongly-held scientific opinion. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)
(....)
Time of break-up of continents
A most remarkable aspect of The Urantia Book accounts is the statement that the breakup of the supercontinent commenced 750 million years ago. Wegener placed it at 200 million years ago. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica’s ’Science and Technology’ presented what was then purported to be an up-to-date series of maps depicting the progress of continental drift from 50 to 200 million years ago which is at variance with a similar portrayal in … Scientific American [April 1985 issue] by about 100 million years in aspects of the progression.
Nevertheless, both versions still placed the commencement of continental drift in the vicinity of 200 to 250 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 15-16)
Somewhere around 1980 some geologists were having a rethink about the commencement of continental drift, and in a book entitled 'Genesis', published in 1982, J. Gribbin reported the view that there may have been a pre-existing continent, Pangea 1, roughly 600 million years ago that had broken up into 4 new continents by about 450 million years ago, at the end of the Ordovician age. Then about 200 million years ago, the continents were thought to have converged to form Pangea 2, which quickly broke, first to Laurasia and Gondwanaland, then further breakup occurred at the end of the Cretaceous to give an appearance much like the present world. A different opinion was expressed in an article in Scientific American (1984) 250 (2), 41 which stated the view that a breakup occurred in late Ripherian times between 700 and 900 million years ago, but a 1987 article (Scientific American 256, 94) is more conservative and placed the breakup of Pangea 1 at somewhere near the beginning of the pre-Cambrian, in the order of 600 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
How could it be?
So, 30 years after publication of The Urantia Book with its statements about continental drift and the breakup of a single supercontinent commencing 750 million years ago, Wegener's much maligned theory has now become accepted by virtually all geologists. Furthermore, the date of commencement of the breakup of the original supercontinent that for many, many years was assumed to have started only about 200 million years ago,-has, by virtue of information coming to hand in the 1980’s, now been pushed back to beyond the pre-Cambrian era, and in the vicinity of the time stated in the Urantia Papers in 1934 as 750 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)
Consider the way in which the four authors strive to convince readers that the UB (663) exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology.... Therefore, they argue, the UB was genuinely prophetic in accepting the theory. (GCM 197)
It is obvious that when Gardner's characterization of Bain's argument is viewed in context, that it is a gross mischaracterization to claim that Bain was arguing that the UB "exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology." What Bain did argue was that for the authors to argue in support of Wegener's theory at that time would have put them in opposition to the consensus of the United States geological community, which is a historically accurate and factually true statement. Gardner, on the other hand, goes out of his way to portray continental drift as a respectable theory, even though he had previously argued that Wegener's "theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists." He also failed to cite the real point of Bain's article, which was the 750 date for the break-up of the first supercontinent. Again, at some point, any honest observer is lead to ask, "Why isn't Gardner accurately and fairly representing the facts?"
I note McMenamin states,
McMenamin wrote:The last quotation in this chapter's epigraph describes the Proterozoic breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia.
This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later. This unusual source is The Urantia Book. The name Urantia refers to planet Earth. (McMenamin 1998: 173)
(....)the anonymous members of the Urantia Corps hit on some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s.
They embraced continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community. They recognized the presence of a global supercontinent (Rodinia) and superocean (Mirovia), in existence on earth before Pangea.
(....)the concept of a billion-year-old supercontinent (the currently accepted age for the formation of Rodinia) that subsequently split apart, forming gradually widening ocean basins in which early marine life flourished, is unquestionably present in this book. (McMenamin 1998: 174)
Orthodox scientific arguments for such a proposal did not appear until the late 1960s, and a pre-Pangea supercontinent was never described until Valentine and Moores made the attempt in 1970. The Urantia Corps not only had the age of the formation of Rodinia approximately correct at 1 billion years, but they also were first to link breakup of Rodinia to the emergence of animals (even if the mode of appearance was implantation by extraterrestrials). Furthermore, they even got the timing of that approximately correct at 650 to 600 million years ago ("These inland seas of olden times were truly the cradle of evolution"). (McMenamin 1998: 174-175)
I obtained a copy of the book from the Smith College library and noted the 1955 (eighth edition 1984) publication date.
What could possibly explain such precocious insight from such an unexpected corner? (McMenamin 1998: 175)
(....) [O]ne wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of Wegener’s ideas on continental drift.... Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176)
Cases such as this one (which is by no means unique) are an exercise in humility for me as a scientist. How can it be that discovery of Rodinia, plus a fairly sophisticated rendering of the evolutionary implications of the rifting of Rodinia, falls to an anonymous author engaging in a work of religious revelation decades before scientists find out anything about the subject? Perhaps this is an important aspect of religion-a creative denial of certain aspects of reality in order to access a deeper truth. (McMenamin 1998: 176)
I am not advocating an abandonment of a disciplined scientific peer review process, but I can’t help but wonder whether science would benefit by having scientists themselves or friends of science systematically scan the various nonscientific literatures for writings such as those appearing in The Urantia Book. Scientists would ordinarily ignore and dismiss such writings, but a discerning eye might pick up some gems. (McMenamin 1998: 176)
The concept of Rodinia therefore has a shockingly unexpected intellectual pedigree. When does the concept finally enter the conventional scientific channels? In articles published in the early 1970s, James W. Valentine and Eldridge M. Moores traced the geological history of the continents and spoke of a Precambrian supercontinent.10 This continent was subsequently called proto-Pangea, pre-Pangea, Pangea I, the Late Proterozoic Supercontinent, ur-Pangea, or simply the Precambrian supercontinent. While writing The Emergence of Animals, Dianna McMenamin and I grew weary of these cumbersome names and proposed the name Rodinia for the ancient supercontinent. The corresponding superocean also needed a name, and we decided to call it Mirovia.... Curiously, The Urantia Book also refers to Mirovia, the "world ocean." (McMenamin 1998: 176- 177)
http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/mcmenamin/mcmenamin.pdf
Now I have no problem replacing the 1934 date with the 1955 date, for in fact this does not change the historical facts or truth of McMenamin's statements at all. And as the statements of an actual scientist whose expertise is in the field of Earth Sciences, clearly, Gardner chose to ignore this information too, which he was well aware of, and instead misrepresent the facts and truth for rhetorical purposes.
No scientist would long survive in any one of the scientific fields if they distorted and misrepresented the facts such as Gardner has done with regards to Bain's article; peer review would inevitably weed out such claptrap passed off as "careful" and "in-depth" research. And when it is done intentionally, as it was since Gardner was informed of the facts, but chose to ignore them, then one is left with no other option but to seriously question Gardner's credibility when it comes to the issue of his review of Bain's work and the Urantia Book as well. The tactics Gardner is using, omitting information, ignoring facts, distorting them and misquoting one's opponent, are the same tactics used by some Creationists in their arguments against evolution. Scientists correctly point this out as I have docuemented above, and point out the credibility issues these tactics raise.
Glasziou wrote:Gardner was aware that, by the 1980's, geologists had begun to shift Wegener's 'about 200 million years ago' proposal for commencement of breakup of a supercontinent to somewhere between 500 and 800 million years. He cannot deny his awareness since, in his book, he quotes from a paper on the science content of The Urantia Book which remarks on the book's claim for a 750 million years ago start of land mass break-up. Gardner attempts to divert attention from this remarkable "prediction" by claiming that Wegener's theory was acclaimed by some geologists in the early 1920's....
At the present time, geologists have now modified their views to a commencing time for drift at about 750 million years ago, the same as given in the Urantia Paper received in 1934. And now, in a letter to me dated Novemeber 21, 1995, Gardner acknowledges the convergence of those dates for commencement of drift but ignores their significance and again attempts to divert attention by referring to a statement in the book that 500 million years ago was the start of the long and slow westward drift of north and south America. Gardner says that this is twice the age assigned by geologists for this event.
However, once more Gardner has missed the boat. In the December issue (vol. 270, no. 5242) of the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science we read, "Geologists have been mystified by the wanderings of North America during a crucial period 500 million years ago, when many of the life forms known today were evolving. Now a chunk of crust in western Argentina is turning out to be North America's calling card. Dropped off in western South America nearly 500 million years ago, it pins down the errant North America to within a few thousand kilometers of South America's west coast."
-- Ken Glasziou, Cosmic Reflections. A response to some of the Gardner criticisms. Innerface, vol. 3 no. 1.
Gardner was fully informed of the relevant facts; he just chose to ignore them. Honest criticism, fair and balanced criticism, which acknowledges facts, is one thing; but it is less than forthright to distort facts, omit information, and to otherwise misrepresent the facts relevant to any issue.
Half Truths (Suppressed Evidence): Any statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
UB wrote:Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth.... The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle--these constitute falseness. (555.1)
