In detailing their account of  life and land evolution  on our planet in Urantia Papers 57, 58, 59 and 60, the authors have wholeheartedly embraced the concept of continental drift, an idea first touted by Alfred Wegener in 1910. Take away continental drift from these four Papers and they collapse as a somewhat messy heap.

In a our previous papers, my co-authors and I drew attention to the fact that, over the period in which the Urantia Papers were received and published (1934-1955), the concept of continental drift was held only tenuously, and by very few geologists. Antipathy to the concept was stated to have been particularly strong in the USA. This antipathy lasted through from the early 1920's to well into the 1960 period.

In our view, if the Urantia Papers had actually been written by human authors, it would have been quite irrational for them to go against the grain of prevailing strong professional opinion in making their story of life and land evolution so highly dependent upon the truth of the continental drift theory.

In support of our view that opposition to the theory was extremely strong, we cited a recently published book by science historian, H.E. Le Grand¹, as well as earlier criticisms of Wegener's theory by eminent geologist, R.T. Chamberlin in which he listed 18 points that he considered were destructive of the hypothesis.

Gardner's critique² of our continental draft account is an example of what Meredith Sprunger described as the irrelevant conclusion fallacy.³ Gardner found publications by a handful of European and South African geologists who supported Wegener's ideas. Gardner rambled on about them, gave trivial details of various conferences and postulates, and then finished with "The four Urantian authors also make much of two ancient supernova explosions."

As a technique for distracting his readers, Gardner's method may be effective with uncritical readers. But as a supposedly professional demolition job, it is hardly praiseworthy. In addition to diverting attention through his citation of comparative irrelevancies, Gardner has pulled out another of the tricks of his trade. He totally ignored important items for which he had no explanation.

For the continental drift story of the Urantia Papers, the major "prophetic" item is the actual starting date for drift, given as 750 million years ago.

As his starting date for drift, Wegener had suggested 200-300 million years ago, a view that remained dominant until the 1980's when the commencing date was pushed back to 500 million years or more. A recent estimate⁴ actually coincides exactly with the 750 million years given in Urantia Paper 57.

[Note: Geological dating of this kind is by no means an exact science. The estimate of "750" may mean "closer to 750 than to either 700 or 800 million."]

next column>

A review of "plate tectonics," the new name for "continental drift," appears in the recent CD ROM edition of Encyclopedia Britannica and states, "...disbelief (in Wegener's continental drift) was so strong that it often bordered on indignation. One of the strongest opponents was the British geophysicist Sir Harold Jeffreys, who spent years attempting to demonstrate that continental drift is impossible because the strength of the mantle should be far greater than any conceivable driving force….It was in North America, however, that opposition to Wegener's ideas was vigorous to the point of excess and very nearly unanimous….Wegener was attacked from virtually every possible vantage point, his paleontological evidence attributed to land bridges, the similarity of strata on both sides of the Atlantic called into question, the fit of Atlantic shores declared inaccurate, and his very competence doubted…."--and much more.  Martin Gardner's dedication to his self-appointed task may be undoubted, but it has little in common with truth-seeking.

If the authors of the Urantia Papers were human, we need an explanation of how they were able come up with their extraordinary concepts on the timing of the continental drift phenomenon. A then-discredited Wegener said 200 million years as the start of break-up of a supercontinient, the Urantia Papers' authors put it at 750 million years, and it appears that both are correct, the explanation being that the supercontinent reformed, then broke up a second time. Wegener had some evidence to support his ideas. There appears to have been absolutely no evidence whatever to support the 750 million years breakup at the time the Urantia Papers were written or published.

A lucky guess seems to be the only alternative. But the odds against guessing correctly are enormous.

References:

1. Le Grand, H.E. "Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories." (Cambridge University Press, 1988)

2. Gardner, M.  "Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery." (Prometheus Books, 1995)

3. Sprunger, Meredith,  "The Purpose of Revelation" Innerface International Vol.3 No.1. 1966.

4. Dalziel, I.W.D. "Earth before Pangea." Scientific American, 272 (1) 38.