As a geology professor teaching a course in Introductory Geology, it did not make sense to me that Alfred Wegenerʼs theory of continental drift should have been rejected for nearly half a century. From what I knew of his evidence, it seemed convincing enough. Why were geologists so against these ideas? There must have been more to this history than what was commonly known.
I began this project with the feeling that the rejection of continental drift was a scandal for geology and for science. Scientists should not reject a correct interpretation for so long. In more familiar scandals, such as recent ones in finance, politics, sports, and religion, one naturally looks for cover-ups. If there were cover-ups here, what was being hidden and who was being protected? I collected all the important historical literature, and I found what I was looking for.
This is a revisionist history. It is based largely on a type of historical data that has been overlooked by others – the works of leading geology textbook authors. These authors are especially important, because their textbooks teach students the principles of the science. The theory of continental drift involved a new scientific paradigm, of mobile, not fixed, continents. The textbooks used in introductory geology courses defined the fixist paradigm and influenced the likelihood of a paradigm shift. I have thus paid extra attention to what the main English-language textbook authors wrote, and tried to understand in depth how these highly respected scientists thought. I know from long experience that scientists think just the way other people do.