Institute for Christian Teaching
Elaine Kennedy
Geoscience Research Institute
412-00 Institute for Christian Teaching
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904 USA
Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship
Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic
March 19-26, 2000
Introduction
A variety of aspects may be explored when writing about the topic the Bible and geology. One might discuss the development of scientific philosophy and its relationship to the Christian community, the harmony between the Bible and nature, the diversity of views held by various denominations and their responses to the scientific community; however, this paper approaches the dialogue between scientific conclusions and personal faith with the assumption that the Bible is the final authority, the foundation of all truth.
Beginning with the authority and historicity[i]
of the Bible, the paper outlines the importance of the biblical texts that
create guidelines and boundaries for interpretation of nature in general and in
personal research. Application of this
approach as a means of bolstering faith in the Christian classroom is presented
briefly, followed by evidences from the rock record that seem to me to be
consistent with the biblical account of a worldwide flood.
Each person's acceptance, modification and/or rejection of the authority and historicity of Scripture as God's word will determine the individual's response to the evidence with regard to earth's prehistory. Trust in God's word developed through one's personal relationship with Jesus Christ is foundational to one's worldview.
Within the Christian community, each individual's
position on the historicity of Scripture naturally forms the basis for any
discussion of earth's history and prehistory.
The prehistoric period is specifically addressed in Genesis 1-11, and
within these chapters, we find astounding accounts of global creation
and devastation that must have left striking evidences within the earth's crust
as mute testimonies of their occurrences.
Acceptance of these evidences as support of the biblical narratives is
dependent on each person's worldview and especially on one's confidence in the
historical accuracy of the Bible. It is
little wonder then that the large agnostic, scientific community[ii]
would have difficulty recognizing geological evidence for a global catastrophe
responsible for the majority of the earth's crustal deformation, deposition and
erosion, as well as the fossiliferous remains buried within it.
In general, many in the Christian and most in the
non-Christian geological communities summarily reject the historicity of
Scripture with respect to earth's prehistoric existence; however, this has not
always been the case. In the eighteenth
century geologists were Christian men who firmly believed in the biblical
account of a global catastrophic flood.[iii] In the early 19th century
theories of multiple catastrophes were promoted by Georges Cuvier, d'Orbigny
and William Buckland. These men
suggested that the effects of the biblical flood could be seen in erosive
surface features and, according to Buckland, in deposits of sediments
associated with tropical animals found in Yorkshire.[iv] At the time the theories were hailed by the
Protestant and Catholic churches as glorious victories against skeptics that
provided evidence for the truth of the Bible.[v] Unfortunately, the restriction of the
biblical flood to the uppermost sediments created serious problems because
subsequent work by Agassiz and others identified these deposits as remnants of
glaciation[vi]
and thus, the widely touted evidence of a global flood was nullified by the
scientific reinterpretation of the deposits.
During this time a localized flood theory advanced by John Pye Smith, a
theologian, was successfully promoted and gained archeological support from
Woolley and Langdon in the 20th century.[vii] Subsequent
archeological work disproved their claims[viii] but
regional flood theories continue to enthrall the theological community and the
public at large (e.g., the most recent theory suggests the rapid filling of the
Black Sea could be the source for the biblical flood account.[ix])
As new scientific theories were advanced, theologians
seemed to have accepted their claims despite the implications such theories
had, and still have, regarding the historicity of scripture and the very
authority of God's word in matters of earth's prehistory. The desire on the part of the church leaders
to be scientifically up-to-date plunged them into a quagmire of theological
implications for which they were unprepared, and ultimately resulted in the
loss of biblical authority as the final test of truth within the churches. Consequently, confidence in the truth of
scientific theories, conclusions, and in some cases, speculation has led many
people to reject the authority and historicity of Scripture, particularly in
the area of earth's prehistoric era.[x]
Today a very articulate and vocal minority of
scientists from a variety of disciplines urge the scientific community to
recognize the inadequacy of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and
the validity of intelligent design in nature.[xi] Within Adventism, scientists such as Price,
Clark, Coffin, Brand and Roth have advocated throughout the years in numerous
publications not only the existence of an intelligent designer but supported
the authority and historicity of the Bible particularly in the area of earth's
prehistory.[xii]
A new generation of flood geologists and other
scientists are urging their colleagues, the Christian community and the general
public to refrain from seeking scientific arguments to bolster their faith in
the Bible.[xiii] Evidences and theories consistent with the
biblical account do not prove the events, nor do evidences and theories
contrary to the biblical account disprove them. These scientists believe that
God's word is the foundation and guide to truth, and the testing ground for the
evidences and theories that may be advanced regarding the creation/flood issues
found in Genesis 1-11. Such
beliefs are personal choices based on personal experiences since even the
position one takes with respect to the authority and historicity of the Bible
is dependent on personal experiences, i.e., the development of trust in God and
His word. On this foundation new
research is being conducted not to prove God's word but rather to seek answers
to the 'how' and 'why' questions presented in Scripture but rarely addressed by
scientists.
While the biblical account of creation and the flood
is not couched in scientific language, it nevertheless supplies us with
specific information that functions as a guideline in our study of Earth
history. Many of these specifics create
serious problems for researchers because we do not have the expertise to
evaluate the language of the Bible and the validity of the conclusions we draw
from the specific information that is provided regarding these events. Since we
need a good, solid biblical exegesis, it is important that researchers dialogue
with theologians, as they develop models and concepts about the unique events
recorded in Scripture.
In the first two chapters of Genesis[xiv]
we read the biblical account of creation; however, it is difficult to determine
from the text exactly what is being created with respect to our earth as it is
today. For example, on the first day,
was the earth covered by water or were the rock and water created ex nihilo? How is the third day geologically distinct
from the creative acts of the first day?
Can we tell from the geologic record whether some
layers in the crust of the earth were a part of the original creation?
Geologists often refer to basement rocks but this term has multiple meanings.
Basement rock can be igneous[xv]
rocks, mafic[xvi]
metamorphic[xvii]
rocks, the recambrian[xviii]
units or simply layers lower than those units being studied by the geologist.
Structural features in the Precambrian rocks suggest reworking and metamorphism
that may have occurred on day one of creation, day three of creation or during
the Genesis flood.
In Genesis two, verse five the Bible says "for
the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth." This statement can be understood in several
ways: it may mean that it did not rain in the garden of Eden that it did not
rain until after the Fall of humanity, or that it did not rain until the time
of the Flood. Ellen G. White comments
in Patriarchs and Prophets[xix]
that there was no rain on the earth prior to the Genesis Flood. This concept has far-ranging implications
with regard to geological processes.
Although rivers move large amounts of sediment and constantly rework the
material, as well as the landscape, the bulk of this activity occurs during a
flood stage. Without storms, there is no mechanism for flooding rivers and
moving vast amounts of sediment; thus, delta development would be minimal. Rates of erosion, transport and deposition
would be expected to be less than they are today because increased vegetation
in terrestrial, fresh and marine water systems would retard erosion in the
preflood world. However, some have
suggested that the original area that was vegetating was restricted to the
Garden of Eden and that it was the responsibility of Adam and Eve and their
descendants to plant and populate the earth.
If this was the case, the barrenness of the earth would have lent itself
to higher rates of erosion and contributed to significant sediment deposition
that might be recognizable in the geologic record. It might be helpful if
researchers had easy access to papers with relevant passages that have been
subject to a proper exegesis in order to acquire clues to the vegetative state
of the preflood earth, how much time passed prior to the flood plus how much
time has passed since the flood. As yet
we do not have firm chronological parameters to help us ascertain the time
frames available for pre- and post- flood deposition and erosion.[xx]
Scripture also tells us that the oceans have
restricted boundaries today[xxi]
so Christian geologists expect modern coastal marine environments to remain
relatively stable. Most geologists
would not agree with this statement because there is a geologic record filled
with marine transgressions and regressions[xxii] that they
believe occurred over millions of years.
For flood geologists the Genesis Flood is regarded as an event that
interrupted marine stasis,[xxiii]
and some of these geologists suspect that the marine system was more stable
prior to that event than it is today. It seems likely that at least two
thousand years prior to the flood, sediment in the lower part of the geologic
column was deposited through various organic and inorganic processes in marine
and fresh water systems. We have
difficulty researching some of these concepts because we do not know the
limitations of our biblical interpretations.
From these examples it should be obvious that how
Christian geologists interpret the biblical information affects how they
interpret the geologic record. Within the scientific community the previous
statement is very objectionable and in some ways it is very uncomfortable for
me as well because scientists view this statement as religious bias; however,
the biblical narrative of Earth's history and prehistory provides the
perspective that shapes the research done by flood geologists. In addition, the scientific community and
even most of the Christians working within the scientific community has
difficulty accepting the validity of a Bible-based perspective as the prime
motivational factor for research on earth's history and prehistory. To acknowledge that one's personal bias,
working hypothesis and motivation for research have their origin in the Bible
is anathema to the scientist. Yet,
acknowledging constraints from a biblical or a religious perspective does not a
priori invalidate the hypothesis or model, or identify the work and/or
worker as unscientific.[xxiv]
Biblical constraints have been extremely useful for
eliminating needless repetition of previous work, focusing the scope of the
study, suggesting research to be done, and confirming conclusions. Flood model development would be greatly
enhanced by access to theological implications and interpretations of key texts
in Genesis 1-11.
As a geologist and scientist, I enjoy puzzles. I like to look at the rocks and try to
figure out where they originated, how they were transported, what organisms
inhabited the original environment, what organisms inhabited the environments
where the sediments were deposited, and what changes have occurred in rocks
since their deposition. As a Christian
geologist, I like to take these little puzzles, fit them into the much bigger
puzzle found in Genesis 1 through 11, and finally place them in the larger
context of the Great Controversy. I
have not always approached my geological research from this perspective;
nevertheless, I have found this approach both challenging and rewarding.
As to the specific influence of the Bible on my
personal research, the Bible provides fundamental guidelines that leave me free
to do my work using standard geological methodologies while urging me to
consider new ideas, and to explore concepts related to time that are not
currently accepted within the geologic community.
Having read the biblical account of the worldwide
flood I was convinced that there must be evidence of this event in the
geological record, and since various aspects of the geologic record had
previously suggested to me that this is true, I suspected that it might be
possible to define the sequence of flood events from these data. Therefore, my primary interest does not lie
in the area of proving the flood but rather developing criteria that would help
us define the flood stages that must have existed as water rose and fell across
the surface of the earth.
For example, if multiple levels of dinosaur nesting,
indicative of multiple nesting seasons, could be documented, it might be
possible to determine the sediments that were deposited either before the flood
or after the flood. Knowing where the
flood began and ended in the rock record would greatly enhance our ability to
develop a comprehensive flood model.
Flood geologists recognize that the Genesis Flood was a supernatural
event and they are not necessarily trying to explain how God intervened; rather,
they are trying to explain the natural processes that are related to the flood
activity and the record of their effects preserved in the earth.
Some of my research has been conducted in Patagonia,
Argentina, where dinosaur nest sites have been reported.[xxv] It is common in the literature to find
localities that are touted as nest sites with no evidence to support that
contention except the presence of an egg or multiple eggs. At this locality,
multiple eggs occur three-dimensionally within the cross-bedded[xxvi]
and obviously transported sandstone unit.
Several meters below that sandstone lies a mudstone[xxvii] unit that
does not contain eggs but does contain numerous eggshell fragments. The mudstone itself appears to be a single
event and most likely a turbidite.[xxviii] The orientation and distribution of the
eggshell fragments within the mudstone support the conclusion that the deposits
do not represent dinosaur nesting sites.
Even at localities where nest structure has been
reported, the evaluation has not been completed within the larger context of
the sedimentological setting. In
Montana crevasse splays that commonly develop when a river breaches its levee
and drops sediment on the flood plain have been identified as dinosaur nests
when they contain dinosaur eggs and eggshell fragments. My preliminary sedimentological evaluation
of one site demonstrated that the eggshell fragments and the eggs had been
transported by the waters depositing the sands and muds of the crevasse splay.[xxix] There was no evidence of nesting at the
localities where I worked, even though I was predisposed to find not only nests
but multiple layers of nests as well because I was hoping to collect data that
might be used to describe flood stages.
There are additional questions to be addressed with
regard to such deposits from the biblical perspective. Christians want to know how dinosaurs fit
into the picture of creation and the flood.
Did God create the enormous carnivores and put them in the garden of Eden? If God created them, why are they
extinct? Were they killed by an
asteroid or by the worldwide flood or both?
If there are true dinosaur nests in the record, how do they fit into the
flood story? Were these nests deposited
before the flood, during the flood, or after the flood? How do we explain such behavior within the
context of such a tumultuous and catastrophic event? These are the kinds of questions that are being asked as I
present lectures about Earth's prehistory to a wide variety of Seventh-day
Adventist audiences. Because I do not have good answers for these questions,
research in this area seems very worthwhile; however, my primary interest in
the dinosaur nests arises more from the influence of the biblical creation and
flood accounts (i.e., the origin of all the basic kinds of animals during a
creation week and the flood stages generated by the rising and falling of
waters) than from any other source.
Placing the geological questions within the context of
the biblical flood broadens the scope of research. For example, Dr. Arthur Chadwick and I have been working on a
project in the Grand Canyon.[xxx] More than 20 years ago Dr. Chadwick found
structures in a sandstone that contradicted currently promoted models regarding
its deposition. He gathered data and
presented it to the geologists at a professional meeting.[xxxi] Unfortunately they were not impressed and
insisted that he go back to the Canyon where he would find data that supported the
commonly held model. Six years ago he
invited me to study this sandstone with him and I was thrilled to have the
opportunity to look at this particular puzzle because the sandstone sits above
rock units that might have been a part of the preflood world. The current explanation for this sandstone
contends that it was deposited in a shallow transgressing sea. Our data suggest an entirely different
model, one in which deposition occurred in very deep water.[xxxii] Within the flood context, the depth of the
water is actually irrelevant but the implications of the work are far ranging
for sedimentological interpretations.
The nature of the sandstone contact with the underlying units is
striking, and it may have important implications with regard to the onset of
the Genesis flood. This relationship
however cannot yet be demonstrated.
The challenges that such research provides for
Christian geologists may at times seem overwhelming; however, our confidence in
the historicity and authority of Scripture provides impetus for continued
research. Indeed, the biblical
narratives buoy our spirits and urge us to demonstrate high ethics and quality
research to the secular scientific community.
Teaching geology in a Christian school is not going to
be easy because stereotypes, held by the geologic community with regard to
Christianity[xxxiii]
and vice versa,[xxxiv]
increase the hostility and resistance to the teaching of earth science in our
schools. In addition, geologic concepts
and even terminologies are fraught with evolutionary and chronological
implications that complicate the presentation of the material for our teachers.
Geologically oriented publications have logical, well-rehearsed interpretations
of the data that ignore a wealth of biblical information as well as the
theological implications of their conclusions.
For these reasons it is vital that earth science be taught in our
elementary schools, junior academies, senior academies, colleges and
universities worldwide. The problematic
nature of the discipline provides our educators with a golden opportunity to
teach our students how to think, how to separate data from interpretation, how
to analyze methodologies and compare techniques against the validity of a
conclusion. The discipline has an
enormous vocabulary designed to facilitate communication of information and
concepts; however, too much time may be spent memorizing just the facts and
vocabulary. In addition, our concept of
quality education requires that students perform well on standardized exams;
thus, earth science teachers regardless of their background in geology are
placed in a very uncomfortable position.
The time available to them to instruct the students beyond the basic
information is typically inadequate.[xxxv] Our
educators need to strike a balance -- to present information in their
classrooms and teach the students how to think, how to analyze, how to
evaluate, how to integrate what they are receiving into their belief
system.
For example, a class exercise to demonstrate how to
separate data from interpretation could use an article from a newspaper or
national magazine written on some geologically interesting site or some
exciting new fossil. As the students
compile their lists of data, comparisons would be made and the merits of the
data discussed. Once the data have been
thoroughly separated from the interpretations, the class would participate in a
brainstorming session to develop other explanations for the data. In the next step, students would incorporate
data from biblical and historical sources to draw conclusions regarding
compatibility of various ideas with their personal beliefs. Data that are better or more easily
explained from a long age model provide an opportunity to illustrate that we do
not have all the answers and that our beliefs are based on the authority and
historicity of Scripture rather than any scientific proof. Such techniques could then be applied to
all of their reading assignments.
Such an education is challenging not only to our
teachers but also the students. Our
young people typically want to know what will be required for the next test.
They want answers because they are not really interested in the complex
scientific paradigms. Church leaders, pastors, teachers, and members often want
us to just give them the answers, as well.
Our world is filled with complex environmental and political problems
that are related to geology so our students should be prepared for the
reasoning that is required to make honorable choices, influencing our world for
God.
Teaching geology gives us a platform for true
education, an opportunity to challenge our students to think for themselves
rather than to parrot their teachers and professors in our academies, colleges
and universities. It also gives us an
opportunity to impress upon our students the importance of a foundation based
on the validity of Scripture as a guide, not only in the spiritual life, but
also in the practical matters that we must deal within our world.
Four aspects of geology have affirmed my faith through
the years. For example, there is a
series of philosophical comments in my first geology textbook that admits
scientists might ascribe many of the features we see in the rocks to a
catastrophic, worldwide flood and that such an explanation is legitimate. The authors of the text go on to say that
the same features can be generated over long periods of time, and thus, the
cataclysmic explanation is not needed.[xxxvi] However, the admission that the structures
in the rock record can be attributed to the Genesis Flood without impugning my
integrity as a scientist.
Most important are the details from the rock record
that indicate a shorter chronology than that proposed by the secular geologic
community. Within the geologic record
there are numerous contacts among the layers that show little evidence for the
passage of time. These contacts may have no evidence of continuing deposition
and have little erosion; they may be gradational[xxxvii] or
lithologically[xxxviii]
continuous. Typically the time frames denoted by the layers are based upon
fossil content or from radiometric dates determined from associated volcanic
ash beds or lavas and do not match the sedimentological data associated with
the contact.
Sedimentologically, there is abundant evidence for
catastrophic deposition, rapidly deposited sequences but little evidence for
extremely long-term deposition. Sedimentation is aperiodic; erosion and
deposition occur in short-term events.[xxxix] Deposition that is considered long-term is
based on the time postulated for the development of a particular environmental
system or estimated time necessary for evolutionary development of the fossils
contained in the deposit or associated radiometric dates. The validity of the time required to
generate these deposits depends to some extent on the validity of the
interpretations. For example, coal beds
are thought to have formed on deltas; however, upright trees in these beds
indicate the sediments were rapidly deposited because these trees must have
been buried and preserved before they rotted.[xl] The time
required for the growth and development of the swampy, deltaic environment does
not coincide with the preservational needs of the deposit.
Since structural relationships of these environments
may be affected by tectonic[xli]
and marine activity that can be explained by a highly complex worldwide flood
or the conventional model, what one believes about the mechanisms generating
these deposits is a choice based on personal world view. (It should be noted
however that the conventional models imply, and some might say they require,
that God function very differently from His own explanation of His character in
the Bible.) These sedimentological
features are consistent with the biblical chronological data in the Genesis
account of earth's prehistory.
Secondly, there are numerous deposits with similar
types of rock, fossils, and chemistries that are regionally extensive but
geographically isolated from each other all over the world. For example, Cretaceous[xlii] chalk beds
are found worldwide; Permo-Triassic[xliii]See
endnote 16. salt beds and red beds are found throughout Europe, eastern and
western North America, Argentina and China; Mississippian[xliv] limestones
in western and eastern North America as well as in western Europe contain
similar fossils and have strikingly similar lithology. Devonian[xlv] limestones
containing rugose corals[xlvi]
and stromatoporoids[xlvii]
were deposited in southwest England, Belgium, northern France, southwest
Germany, Moravia, U.S. Midwest, Canadian Rockies and western Australia. There is also a worldwide
Cambrian/Precambrian[xlviii]
sequence of a basal conglomerate[xlix]
overlain by an orthoquartzite,[l]
glauconitic[li]
sandstone, shale and capped by
limestone.[lii] The deposition of these units with their
diverse sedimentological and paleontological features raises fascinating
questions about source areas and a possible global depositional mechanism.
Thirdly, the concept of plate tectonics supported by
the maps of ridges, earthquakes, and volcanoes worldwide has made it clear to
everyone that at some time in the past the crust of our earth was shattered
worldwide.[liii] The exact cause of this shattering is not
known but the fracture system suggests movement of the crust on an extremely
large scale. Such massive upheaval is
consistent with a biblical view for earth's prehistory.
Another aspect of the geologic record that provides
clues to events that occurred during the Genesis Flood is the mass mortality
deposits. Not every roadside outcrop
contains fossils but the geologic record is replete with extensive beds of dead
organisms. Trilobites dominate the Cambrian
deposits worldwide. Devonian deposits are referred to as the age of fishes
because, although other organisms are preserved in these beds, extinct fish
dominate them. The Morrison Formation
extends from Texas to Canada and can be identified by its position in the
layers, the types of rock in the unit, as well as the dinosaur fossils found
within it. The London Clay contains seeds and pods from a wide variety of
plants and the Green River Formation is well known for its fossil fish, palm
fronds, oil shale, bivalves, mammals, and birds. The most interesting aspect of
these units and their fossil data is the sequence, the order that is easily
discerned in the fossil record.[liv]
Although I have been generally and somewhat favorably
impressed with the concept of ecological zonation[lv]Clark, Harold
W. 1968. Fossils, Flood, and Fire:
Outdoor Pictures, Escondido, CA, p. 55 – 60. as an explanation for the fossil
sequence, I have not been able to resolve the detailed sequencing found in the
record to my personal satisfaction. The
sequence may be attributed to a complex variety of processes such as source
areas, transport and sorting, survivability, rapidly changing environmental
conditions, sequential destruction of ecological niches. A statement by Ellen White suggests to me
that there is an answer to this puzzle that may be directly related to God's
purposes.[lvi] I do not have that answer but I do have an
idea that is totally unacceptable to most scientists yet very appealing to me
as a believer.[lvii] If the Genesis flood is truly the undoing
of creation, then it seems reasonable to assume that any action on God's part,
in the midst of the flood's chaos, should reflect His character as a God of
order. This does not require a correlation between the sequence of events
occurring during creation and the sequence in the geological column. However,
if the assumption is correct, the sequence itself would provide strong evidence
that the Genesis flood involved not only catastrophic natural processes but did
in fact occur within the context of a supernatural calamity.[lviii] At present I cannot think of any way to
scientifically demonstrate this concept.
Having said that I would like to reemphasize that the acceptance of the
Genesis flood as a judgment of God does not preclude the study of that flood
and the processes contributing to it, including the sequence/the order in the
geologic record.
The geologic evidence
does not compel me to believe the Bible but it is faith affirming because as I
look at the geology I can see evidence for the Genesis Flood. I see the destructive results of human sin
in the corruption and mass mortalities found in the rock record. I am appalled
at what sin has cost our world and our God.
Although organisms do change, the fossil record indicates that there is
no grand scheme of evolution. The fossil record is a record of death that
predicts that species go extinct and then are replaced by something else. Thus, humans will go extinct according to
the fossil record and there is no hope, there is no future, there is no
afterlife, no heaven or hell, nothing. That
is the interpretation offered to us by the secular scientific community in
regard to the fossil record.
The Genesis Flood is described in the Bible as a
judgment from God, the undoing of the creation, and this required the almost
total destruction of life on our earth.
Within a short chronological context the fossil record contains abundant
data consistent with a worldwide Flood. The problems of chronology and
sequencing do not support our belief system; to believers these issues are a matter
of faith. In addition to our personal
experiences with Jesus Christ and despite the chronology and sequencing
problems, there is ample geologic evidence[lix] that can be
interpreted in a manner consistent with our position thus, encouraging our
confidence in God's Word.
Evidence of large-scale, high-energy deposition of
sediments, contortion of rock layers, displacement of mountains, rapid movement
of rock units, devastation of organisms and massive erosion certainly can be
interpreted within the context of a long chronology for earth's history;
however, this evidence is also consistent with the short chronology proposed by
the biblical account of creation and the worldwide flood. This evidence is subject to interpretation
based upon one's worldview. My own
worldview has been shaped by my trust in God's word, and that trust has been
built on my personal relationship with my Redeemer.
My biblical understanding of the fossil record is very
different from the current interpretations presented by the geologic community.
The biblical account of the Genesis Flood records God's continuous action to
preserve life. God warned Noah that the
flood was coming and God used Noah to preach to the people in an effort to save
lives. God gave Noah specific instructions
so that he would build an ark for the preservation of a wide variety of land
dwelling organisms. Ellen White tells us that if God had not protected the ark
during the Flood, it would have perished.[lx] The
shattering of the earth's crust that is documented in the geologic record would
seem to support that statement. From the text in Genesis[lxi] it seems
clear that human sin was responsible for the Genesis Flood just as Scripture
informs us that we are responsible for the current situation in which we
live. The book of Genesis records God's
actions as the creator and author of life.
The authenticity and historicity of Scripture and including especially
those texts found in Genesis are the foundation for my belief that God is not
only the Creator but also the Redeemer of this world.
[i] The term "historicity" is not used
as a technical term in this paper; but rather, as a truthful and reliable
account of an event that actually occurred, i.e., a real event and genuine
account of earth during its prehistory.
[ii] Larson, Edward and Witham, Larry 1999.
Scientists and Religion in America: Scientific American 281(3):88-93. A random sample of scientists listed in
American Men and Women of Science indicates 60% of the scientists are non-believers. The results of a poll of National Academy of
Science members indicates more than 90% do not believe in a God who answers
prayer and grants personal immortality (beliefs held about God throughout
Christianity).
[iii] Morris, Henry M. and Whitcomb, Jr., John C.
1961. The Genesis Flood: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
Philadelphia, p. 91.
[iv] Ibid., p. 92-93.
[v] Ibid., p. 94.
[vi] Tarbuck, Edward J. and Lutgens, Frederick K.
1987. The Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology (2nd edition):
Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, p287-288.
See also: Rehwinkel, Alfred M. 1951. The Flood: Concordia Publishing
House, St. Louis, p298-300.
[vii] Morris and Whitcomb, p. 109-110.
[viii] Ibid, p. 111.
[ix] Ryan, William and Pitman, Walter C. 1997.
Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event that Changed
History: Simon & Schuster, Inc., NYC, 319p. See also Stiling 1997. The Diminishing Flood: Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Wisconsin.
[x] Roth, Ariel A. 1998. Origins: Linking
Science and Scripture: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., Hagerstown, MD.
384p.
[xi] Denton, Michael 1985. Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis: Adler & Adler Publishers, Inc., Bethesda, 368p. See also:
Johnson, Phillip E. 1991. Darwin on Trial: InterVarsity Press, Downers
Grove, IL, 195p. Moreland, J.P.(ed.)
1994. The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer:
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 335p. Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's
Black Box: Simon & Schuster, NYC, 307p. Ashton, John F. (ed.) 1999. In Six
Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation: New Holland Publishers,
Sydney, 360p.
[xii] Price, George McCready 1916. Back to the
Bible or, The New Protestantism: Review & Herald Publishing Assn.,
Washington, D.C., 235p. See also:
Clark, Harold W. 1946. The New Diluvialism: Science Publications, Angwin, CA,
224p. Coffin, Harold G. 1969. Creation-Accident or Design? or, Origin by
Design: Review & Herald Publishing Assn., Washington, D.C., 512p. Brand,
Leonard 1997. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and
Biological Origins by Intelligent Design: Andrews University Press, Berrien
Springs, MI, 332p. Roth, Ariel, A. 1998. Origins: Linking Science and
Scripture: Review & Herald Publishing Assn., Hagerstown, MD, 384p.
[xiii] Ashton, p. 229-360.
[xiv] Biblical references are from the King James
version.
[xv] Rocks cooled from a molten state.
[xvi] Dark, dense rocks.
[xvii] Rocks altered by heat and pressure.
[xviii] The geologic record is described within the
context of a worldwide, idealized composite of the crustal layers of the earth
that is known as the geologic column.
There are four major sections in the geologic column that are denoted as
the Precambrian, Paleozoic Era ("ancient life"), Mesozoic Era ("middle
life"), and Cenozoic Era ("recent life"). From the base of the
geologic column the deposits occur in the following order: Precambrian,
Paleozoic Era (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian and
Pennsylvanian – also known as the Carboniferous, Permian), Mesozoic Era
(Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous), Cenozoic Era (Tertiary– Paleocene, Eocene,
Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene; Quaternary– Pleistocene).
[xix] White, Ellen G. 1958. Patriarchs and Prophets: Pacific Press
Publishing Association, Mountain View, CA, p. 96-97.
[xx] Chronologies for recent earth or old
earth/young life are not really needed due to the inconsistency between the
nature of God as portrayed in the Bible and the life of Christ versus the
fossil record filled with wanton catastrophic destruction of life over
postulated millions of years.
[xxi] Psalms 104: 5-9; Jeremiah 5: 22.
[xxii] Rise and fall in sea level.
[xxiii] Stable sea level.
[xxiv] Ratzsch, Del 1996. The Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation- Evolution Debate: InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL,
p.158-179.
[xxv] Kennedy, Elaine and Spencer, Lee 1995. An unusual occurrence of dinosaur eggshell
fragments in a storm surge deposit, Lamargue Group, Patagonia, Argentina:
Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 27:A – 318.
[xxvi] An inclined bed deposited by wind or water
currents.
[xxvii] Hardened, fine-grained mud.
[xxviii] Subaqueous mud or sand flow.
[xxix] Kennedy, Elaine 1997. Distribution of dinosaur eggshell fragments
in an overbank deposit, Two Medicine Formation, Choteau, Montana: A preliminary
report: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 29: A – 272.
[xxx] Chadwick, Arthur V. and Kennedy, Elaine
1998. Evidence for deepwater deposition
of the Tapeats sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona, U.S.A.: 15th
Sedimentological Congress, Alicante, Spain, p. 247.
[xxxi] Personal communication with Dr. Arthur V.
Chadwick, Department Chair, Biology Department, Southwestern Adventist
University.
[xxxii] Kennedy, Elaine, Kablanow, Ray and Chadwick,
Arthur V. 1997. Evidence for deepwater
deposition of the Tapeats sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Proceedings of the
Third Biennial Conference of Research on the Colorado Plateau, Charles van
Riper, III and Elena T. Deshler (eds.), Transactions and Proceedings Series
NPS/NRNAU/NRTP-97/12, U.S. Dept. of Interior, p. 215-228.
[xxxiii] Allen, John Eliot, Burns, Marjorie and
Sargent, Samuel C. 1986. Cataclysms on the Columbia: Timber Press, Portland,
Oregon, p. 1 – 73.
[xxxiv] Personal communication with church members,
pastors and church leaders, 1991-2000.
[xxxv] Personal experience, 1983-85, 89-90.
[xxxvi] Stokes, William Lee and Judson, Sheldon
1968. Introduction to Geology: Physical and Historical: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 296.
[xxxvii] Continuous deposition of sediments across
the contact from one unit into the overlying unit.
[xxxviii] Lithology refers to the type of rocks
occurring in a deposit. For a unit to be lithologically continuous requires
that the rock type remains the same both laterally and vertically regardless of
the paleontology i.e., fossil content.
[xxxix] Ager, Derek V. 1981. The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record:
Macmillan Press, London, p. 42.
[xl] In Louisiana bayous experiments conducted in
the '50s, wood and plant material rotted within two weeks. Personal communication from Dr. Maurice
Powers.
[xli] Forces and structures associated with
crustal movement.
[xlii]
Cretaceous deposits occur at the top of the Mesozoic and immediately
underlie the Paleocene in the Cenozoic.
See endnote 16.
[xliii] Permian deposits are found at the top of the
Paleozoic Era. The Triassic deposits
overlying the Permian deposits constitute the base of the Mesozoic Era. The Permo-Triassic
refers to deposits in the geologic record that are individually designated as
the Permian and the Triassic.
[xliv] The Mississippian is the basal portion of
the Carboniferous which underlies the Permian.
See endnote 16.
[xlv] Devonian deposits underlie the Carboniferous
in the Paleozoic. See endnote 16.
[xlvi] Solitary, conical or cylindrical, massive or
branching coral. Some varieties are
commonly called horn coral.
[xlvii] Organisms known only from their encrusting,
calcareous skeletons with sub-horizontal to laminar, open network
structure.
[xlviii] Basal units in the geologic column. See endnote 16.
[xlix] A sedimentary rock composed of cemented,
rounded pebbles and/or cobbles and/or boulders.
[l] A "pure" quartz sandstone.
[li] A green-colored mineral in the mica group.
[lii] Ibid, p.7-8. See also: Ager, Derek V. 1993. The New Catastrophism:
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 41-49.
[liii] I am assuming the existence of a Pangaean
sea during some part of the Genesis flood without precluding geographically
separated, large seas associated with the continents pre-flood.
[liv] Note: The fossil record is not perfectly
ordered. See, Raup, David M. 1981.
Evolution and the Fossil Record: Science (Letters) 213(4505):289.
[lv] The concept of ecological zonation is
described by Harold Clark.
[lvi] White, p. 112: "In the days of Noah,
men, animals, and trees, many times larger than now exist, were buried, and
thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvian
perished by a flood. God designed that
the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but
men, with their vain reasoning, fall into the same error as did the people
before the Flood– the things which God gave them as a benefit, they turn into a
curse by making a wrong use of them."
[lvii]There are several ways to define the term
supernatural, but with respect to the concept I am proposing I am restricting
the definition to an event caused by a special act of God that includes natural
processes, i.e. including processes that lie within the realm of scientific
inquiry.
[lviii] Genesis 6:17.
[lix] Brand, p. 266.
[lx] White, p. 100.
[lxi] Genesis 6:13