CRSQ 2011 Volume 48, Number 1.Pdf

CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY

Q UARTERLY VolumeQ 48 Summer 2011 Number 1

• THE LITTLE ICE AGE - PART II

• THE UNIVERSE IN REAL TIME

• “GEOTHEORY”: PAST AND PRESENT

• ORIGIN OF APPALACHIAN GEOMORPHOLOGY - PART I

• FLOOD / ICE AGE TRANSITION JUPITER’S POLES - ACETYLENE CONCENTRATIONS Q Volume 48 Creation Research Number 1 Society Quarterly Summer 2011

Articles Departments

The Universe in Near Real Time Notes from the Panorama of Science and the Light Time Effect...... 4 Reevaluation of Earth Age Ronald G. Samec and Bruce Oliver Using Hung’s Dating Model...... 59

Letters to the Editor Documenting the Sedimentary and Stratigraphic Transition Mammals and Mammal-like Reptiles: between the Middle/Upper Flood Event Divisions Within Their Kinds...... 63 and the Lower/Middle Ice Age Divisions Harmonizing Humphreys, Hartnett, in and Surrounding Providence Canyon and Gentry...... 64 State Park, Stewart County, Georgia (U.S.A.)...... 14 Nephilim vs. Modern Man? A Critique...... 64 Carl R. Froede Jr. Genesis Model and the Necessity for Post-Morris Paradigms...... 68 “Geotheory”: Past and Present...... 20 John K. Reed, Peter Klevberg Media Reviews...... 77

Instructions to Authors...... 91 Origin of Appalachian Geomorphology Part I: Erosion by Retreating Floodwater Membership/Subscription Application and the Formation of the and Renewal Form...... 93 Continental Margin...... 33 Michael J. Oard Order Blank for Past Issues...... 94

The Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic Region Part II: Magnitude, Extent, and Importance of the Little Ice Age...... 49 Peter Klevberg, Michael J. Oard

Haec Credimus For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh.—Exodus 20:11 Volume 48, Summer 2011 3 Volume 48 Creation Research Number 1 Society Quarterly Summer 2011

Cover design by Michael Erkel: Michael Erkel and Associates, 1171 Carter Street, Crozet, Virginia 22932 CRSQ Editorial Staff Kevin L. Anderson, Editor Design services by Cindy Blandon, [email protected] Bill Barrick, Biblical Studies Editor Jerry Bergman, Biology Editor The Creation Research Society Quarterly is published Don B. DeYoung, Book Review Editor by the Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway Eugene F. Chaffin, Physics Editor 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323, and it is indexed in the George F. Howe, Assistant Biology Editor Christian Periodical Index and the Zoological Record. Jean K. Lightner, Biology Editor Robert Mullin, Assistant Managing Editor Send papers on all subjects to the Editor: John K. Reed, Geology Editor [email protected] or to Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Editor Kevin L. Anderson, Van Andel Creation Research Theodore Siek, Biochemistry Editor Center, 6801 N. Highway 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323. Jarl Waggoner, Managing Editor

Send book reviews to the Book Review Editor: Don B. DeYoung, 200 Seminary Dr., Winona Lake, IN 46590, [email protected]. CRS Board of Directors Don B. DeYoung, President Authors’ opinions expressed in the Quarterly are not Eugene F. Chaffin,Vice-President necessarily those of anyone else associated with the Glen W. Wolfrom, Membership Secretary Creation Research Society. Danny Faulkner, Treasurer Mark Armitage, Financial Secretary Copyright © 2011 by Creation Research Society. All Gary H. Locklair, Recording Secretary rights to the articles published in the Creation Research Robert Hill Society Quarterly are reserved to the Creation Research D. Russell Humphreys Society. Permission to reprint material in any form, in- David A. Kaufmann cluding the Internet, must be obtained from the Editor. Jean K. Lightner Michael J. Oard ISSN 0092-9166 John K. Reed David Rodabaugh Printed in the United States of America Ronald G. Samec 4 Creation Research Society Quarterly The Universe in Near Real Time and the Light Time Effect

Ronald G. Samec and Bruce Oliver*

Abstract t the 2009 CRS conference (Lancaster, SC), Steve Miller presented A a paper entitled, “Universe in Near Real Time.” This paper suggests the possibility that the astronomical universe is actually being observed in near real time. Miller gives scriptural evidence for this proposal in Revelation 8:12. He envisions an envelope surrounding the solar system in which light travels at velocity c. But outside this envelope the speed is nearly infinite. Observationally, it is readily seen that the light-time effect refutes this idea. We cite observations from the literature as well as our recent observations of FY Bootis, a very short- period binary, which displays a sinusoidal orbital light-time effect (an O-C curve). The light-time effect in this system is due to a close binary orbited by a third body. If the scenario of the “Universe in Near Real Time” were true, the O-C curve should be a straight line fit instead of a sinusoid and we could not make the determination given here. This is an example of how real astronomical observations can aid the creation community in testing proposed models, and it stresses our need for our own professional creationary astronomical observatory.

Miller (2010), in his paper “Universe in Near Real Time,” proof the sea became blood; and the third part of the creatures posed that astronomers are actually observing the astronomical which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part universe in near real time. Thus, the recent image of two col- of the ships were destroyed. And the third angel sounded, and liding galaxies taken by the HST shown in Figure 1 depicts a there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, scenario that is currently taking place. The scriptural basis of and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the foun- this belief is Revelation 8:12. It is important to read the context tains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: of the verse, so we give it here. and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great moun- men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. And tain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was

* Ronald G. Samec and Bruce Oliver, Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina Accepted for publication January 11, 2011 Volume 48, Summer 2011 5

Figure 1 (above). HST image of colliding galaxies named the “Tadpole” (UGC10214).

Figure 2 (below). The sun, moon, and stars on top image and darkened and reddened by 1/3 or about 1.2 magnitudes on the bottom image. 6 Creation Research Society Quarterly

smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise. (Revelation 8:9–12 KJV) We understand the scenario here to be the end times, during the Great Tribulation. In the first section (the second angel sounding), apparently an asteroid strikes the oceans killing a third part of the sea creatures. Next, the third angel sounds, and apparently a comet with its frozen, noxious gasses strikes the fresh water supply of earth and poisons it. We picture a time of great destruction, asteroids, comets and subsequent volcanism, earthquakes etc. With all this upheaval, the sun, moon, and stars are darkened by 1/3, or about 1.2 magnitudes. They all are dimmed, as seen by the earth-based observer. In fact, they are all dimmed nearly simultaneously (see Figure 2). Does it Figure 3. Roemer’s determination of the speed of light us- follow that solar system bodies, stars tens of light years away, ing light time. as well as bright galaxies up to several million light years away instrinsically become less luminous? Miller (2010) concludes that light travels at near infinite speeds outside the solar system, while measurements of the speed of light in the solar system and impinges on the sun, for instance, rather than changing yield the speed, c = 3x108 m/s. suddenly at the boundary of the envelope. We will address that Another scriptural evidence mentioned to me in casual complication later. Of course, all this has to fit within a context conversation with Steve Miller was Joel 3:15. Again, exploring of about 6000 years of earth rotations (days) since this model the context, Joel 3:14–18, is hypothesized in a young-earth creationist context. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of Further evidence given by Miller for the “Universe in Near the LORD is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the Real Time” is that deep space images reveal the existence moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shin- of mature clusters of galaxies. The Hubble Deep field is an ing. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice example of this. This may be interpreted to mean that the from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but universe was created in a mature form and everywhere we look, the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the universe has a mature age, regardless of distance. the children of Israel. So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through What Is the Light-Time Effect? her any more. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the A good explanation of the light-time effect is seen in Roemer’s mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow determination of the speed of light. See Figure 3. This is simply with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, the measure of time between two eclipses of Jupiter’s moon and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the LORD, Io and the difference of the distances of the two occurrences. and shall water the valley of Shittim. (KJV, italics added) When Jupiter is closer to the earth in their relative orbital mo- Again, this is during the end times. The context is the tions, the eclipses will be seen from the earth earlier than on Battle of Armageddon, and the sun, moon, and stars together average. When Jupiter is relatively farther away, the eclipses are darkened to the earth-based observer. will be seen later. This happens since it takes light longer to In the Miller model, imagine an envelope separating the travel the additional distance. The difference in time is called solar system from the rest of the cosmos. Since we gather from “light time.” This particular light-time effect is allowed in the Scripture that God directly created everything in the solar sys- Miller model since it occurs inside the solar system “envelope.” tem during Creation Week, and He placed the bodies in their The light-time effect for stellar binary systems, however, is particular orbits (Gen. 1:17), perhaps such an envelope might another matter. These systems are from about 50 ly to 10 Mly make some sense. To Mr. Miller, the speed of light inside this distant, so they are well outside the solar system envelope [ly = envelope is 3x108 m/s, and outside of it the speed is essentially light-years]. The solar system is about 50 AU in size, out to the infinite. Some supporters of the Miller model, who attended Kuiper Belt, which is about 0.0008 ly or 7 light-hours. the 2010 CRS Conference, seem to think that the speed de- An eclipsing binary is a pair of stars that regularly eclipse creases, perhaps radially as it comes in from the distant universe each other. The eclipses happen periodically, which means Volume 48, Summer 2011 7

Figure 4. Light-time effect due to a close binary orbiting about a center of mass of a third body, left (a) and right (b).

that eclipse timings are equally spaced in time. The light-time In the Miller model, the eclipses from the close binary, near effect we are referring to here, however, occurs when a close or far, will arrive at the earth observer so that there will be no eclipsing binary systems has a “third body.” This means that time delay or gain due to the distance of the close binary. So the the close binary is orbiting the center of mass of a third body, time delay of the eclipses or the light-time effect is erased in the usually a companion star. See Figure 4a. The observer is on model. This is due to the infinite speed of light outside the en- earth. By the way, to eliminate the light-time effect of the earth’s velope or barrier. The eclipses will always be on time, and never orbital motion, we calculate our time measurements from be early or late. See Figure 5 (the line represents the edge of the the sun’s center (so called Heliocentric Julian Date) or from envelope). Sinusoidal light-time effects are not rare in binary the solar system’s center of mass, the Barycentric Julian Date. light curves since multiple star systems are not unusual! So the Here, we, as all other professional astronomers, will neglect Miller model is found to be incorrect on observational grounds. this earth-caused light-time effect since it is already taken care There is nothing complicated about this effect. It is nearly as of in our time calculations. simple as Dd/c = Dt where the time delay, Dt, is the difference Compare Figure 4a to Figure 4b. The smaller dark star is of the two times and it is due to the difference of the distances, undergoing eclipses with the large gray component as seen by Dd. If the c is infinite, Dt =0, there is no time-light effect! the earth-based observer. This is the close binary system. In turn, the close binary is orbiting about a third star we refer to as a “third body.” If the binary is on the far side of the center of mass orbit as seen by the earth-based observer, as in Figure 4a, the eclipses will happen late due to the light-time effect (it is farther away and the light takes longer to get here). We mark this point on our O-C diagram (see arrow), which is the time of the observed eclipse minus the expected or calculated time of eclipse (eclipse timing). It is a positive value (see lower left- hand plot) since the observed happens later than the calculated time. In Figure 4b, the close binary is in the near side, closer to the observer. In this case, eclipses happen early and the O-C is negative. If many observations are taken, the plotted points will produce a sinusoidal curve as shown (sinusoidal, if the orbit is circular). The time between two adjacent maxima or minima is the period of orbit, and the amplitudes have to do Figure 5. The timing of the eclipses in the binary are inde- with the size of the orbit of the close binary about the center pendent of distance. So the time delay of the eclipses or the of mass of the third body. light-time effect is erased in the Miller model. 8 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Case One: VW Cep, ζ Phe, and HT Vir ± 2, and 210 ± 40 LY. Since VW Cep is a solar type contact There are many instances of the light-time effect in the astro- binary, the O-C residuals are affected by long parabolic trends nomical literature. One example is from a paper in a series of due to mass transfer and lesser amplitude effects due to star articles by Zasche and Wolf (2007) on combining astrometry spot cycles and ongoing spot activity, so the noise is apparent. (positional analyses) with O-C diagrams. This combination Close binaries all have various degrees of extraneous effects confirms that O-C diagrams show that light-time effect is due that somewhat cloud the orbital effects. Real astronomical data to orbital motion of the third components. In this paper the are always complicated by effects that make results somewhat astrometric orbits of three binaries, VW Cep, ζ Phe, and HT unclear. But regardless, the evidence is strong. Vir, are shown, along with their O-C residual plots. The orbits are found to have periods of 30, 221, and 261 years, respectively. Case Two: FY BOOTIS, The orbital eccentricities also have been determined, e=0.63, A Contact System with a Third, Dwarf Component 0.37, and 0.64, respectively, which is a strong indicator of or- FY Boo was recently discovered by ROTSE I (Diethelm, 2001) bital motion. Astrometric orbits and O-C diagrams are shown and identified as an EW type (contact binary) variable with a as Figures 6 and 7. Distances to these binaries are found to period of 0.241168d. This makes it one of the shortest period be 27.7 ± 0.7, 85.8 ± 5.7, and 65.0 ± 11.5 pc, or 90 ± 2, 280 W UMa binaries known.

Figure 6. These are O-C (Observed minus calculated) diagrams of VW Cep (upper right), HT Her (left middle) and ζ Phe, right lower, the two curves are of the two components of the eccentric binary. Volume 48, Summer 2011 9

Figure 7. Astrometric orbit of (a, left top) VW Cep, (b, left middle) ζ Phe, and (c, left bottom) HT Her.

Our spring 2009 analysis of FY Boo was done as a project by Bruce Oliver (a physics and astronomy major at Bob Jones University). Interestingly, this binary also has a sinusoidal O-C curve. Because of that, we will provide a brief review. We took B,V,R,I light curves of the binary with the Lowell 31-inch reflector in Flagstaff with a Cryotiger cooled (-100°C)

NASACAM with a 2KX2K chip and standard BVRcIc filters. The dates of the observations were 11–15 March, 2009. We undertook the observing run under the auspices of the National Undergraduate Observatory (NURO) and were granted observing time by the Lowell TAC. We used the Lowell program LOIS to take our observations. Our modeled light curves included 107 B, 109 V, 95 R, and 98 I individual CCD observations. These observations were taken by Oliver, Samec and Faulkner. The photometric precision was ±0.008 in B, ±0.006 in V, and ±0.005 in R and I. We determined six times of minimum light from our present observations. The times of minimum light were calculated from parabola fits. With their standard errors in parentheses, they include: HJDMin I = 2454901.9711 (±0.0022) d, 2454902.9350 (±0.0024)d, 2454904.8587 (±0.0002)d, 2454905.8304 (±0.0002)d and HJDMin II=2454904.9774 (±0.0007)d, 2454905.9491 (±0.0002)d. From our timings and 43 others from the literature, we calculated the following precision linear ephemeris.

HJD Min I = 2454904.8660 ± 0.0003 + 0.24115955 ± 0.00000005 d × E [1]

Our fit revealed the presence of a low amplitude sinusoid. The sinusoidal ephemeris is:

HJD Min I =2454904.8691(±0.0003)

+ 0.24115955(±0.0000005) X E

+0.0031(±0.0005)*Sin[4.2(±0.3)X10–4

 XE-6.0(±1.4)] [2]

We believe this sinusoid is due to the light-time effect of a third, orbiting component. The ephemeris gives an orbital period of 9.9±0.2 years for the third component. From the 10 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 8. Sinusoidal O-C residuals from equation 2 revealing a third star orbiting the system. Figure 9a. B,V synthetic light curve solutions overlaying the normalized flux curves. amplitude, we calculate an orbital radius of 0.61±0.05 AU in light travel time, assuming the orbital inclination of the third component is identical to the main binary. Using Newton’s form of Kepler’s harmonic law, the third body is found to have a mass of 0.16±0.03 solar masses. This mass is that of an ~M6 dwarf, which is small but comparable to the masses of the other two components. Assuming the system has an absolute magnitude near that of the sun (MV=4.8) and an apparent V magnitude of 13.1 (from the SIMBAD data base), the star’s distance is ~450 Parsecs (~1500 light years), far outside of the radius of our solar system (50 AU = 0.00024 Parsecs). The sinusoidal O-C residuals, calculated from equation 2, are given in Figure 8. Our B,V,R,I light curves were hand modeled with Binary Maker 3.0 (Bradstreet and Steelman, 2002). Averaged values of parameters were then entered into the 2004 version of the Wil- son Code (Wilson and Devinney, 1971 [WD]; Wilson, 1990, Figure 9b. R,I synthetic light curve solutions overlaying the 1994; Van Hamme and Wilson, 1998; Wilson and Van Hamme normalized flux curves. 2003). From these we ran a full BVRI simultaneous solution. Intermediate modeling iterations were done with PHOEBE (Prša and Zwitter 2005), which runs the same Wilson code in the background and makes it possible to view the light-curve Our models show FY Boo is a W-type (the less massive fit as the iterations progress. Full synthetic light-curve solutions component is the hotter) W UMa binary with a mass ratio of follow. The temperature of the main component (4750K, K3V 2.5. The system parameters from our model include a contact spectral type), which we used to model our light curves, was fill-out of 11%, a slight temperature difference of 200 K, and taken from a period-color relation from Batten (1973) using an inclination of 82o. One large 68o radius magnetic region the W UMa period. Recent 2MASS B-V, V-R, J-H and H-K was modeled on the hotter companion with an average tem- average to K1±4 and affirms our choice. We computed both perature of 0.96 times that of the photosphere. The T-factors a hot spot and a dark spot model. The dark spot model has a and spot radii indicate that this is a region of spot activity rather slightly better sum of square residuals. The dark spot light-curve than a giant single spot. The solution gives an eclipse duration solution is seen overlaying the normalized flux curves shown of ~7 minutes. The shallow fill-out is quite normal for a W- in Figures 9a and 9b. Two phases of the Roche-lobe model of type system. We believe that this results due to an early stage the binary for the dark spot solution are shown as Figures 10a of contact. The fairly extreme mass ratio probably indicates and 10b. Phase zero shows the total eclipse. that the components had nearly this value when they came Volume 48, Summer 2011 11

solar system, what effects would this have on light itself? We summarize this circumstance briefly here. If we accept the usually stated size of the universe, the distant galaxies are about 14 GLy distant. In the neighborhood of the solar system, the speed is near c and equal to c inside our special envelope. When distances are on the order of a 103 ly (as with FY Boo) as compared to 1010 ly we would expect the velocity of light to be near c at the nearer distance. Consequently, we would have to probe phenomena on the order of billions of light years to find inconsistencies with a decreasing or spatially decay- ing speed of light. The effects of the alternate model is very Figure 10a. Roche lobe surfaces from our BVRI solution, reminiscent to the model proposed by Barry Setterfield (1987) phase 0.74. and carries with it all the problems that accompanies that idea. The only coordinate change in plots of this “alternate Miller model” is that they carry axis labels of speed of light versus distance instead of speed of light versus time. The conversion between both would be the formula, d = ct, where c varies with distance instead of time (t). And as the light travels through space, time advances. So these ideas are essentially the same. The “cdk” model has been objected to elsewhere (Aardsma, 1988, 1989; Humphreys, 1988; Holt, 1988; Brown, 1988; Byl, 1988; Chaffin, 1992; Hartnett, 2002; Wanser, 2003). Another model that is similar to this is the Harris model (Harris, 1978), where light starts with an infinite speed, then changes to the current value after the Fall as a function of time and distance from the earth. Hartnett states, “One problem with this model may be the massive blue shifts resulting from the change of infinite to finite speed of light. Also, the fine structure of atomic spectra from a stage of no fine structure to the current state as the bubble (the same as my envelope) passes. This would be observable in starlight, but it is not observed (Hartnett, 2007). As we have mentioned, we would expect observational problems to arise in deep space objects, those billions of light years away in the “alternate Miller model.” A light-time effect Figure 10b. Roche lobe surfaces from our BVRI solution, is used with deep space objects to determine their size using phase 0.0 (the primary eclipse). their light curves. This is particularly useful in determining the size of quasars. These objects have been found to be only light days in size and thus to fit a black hole model. The interval of the light curve variations tells us the size of the in contact. We suspect that the mass ratio should progress to object. Figure 11 shows this light-time effect. For instance, more extreme values in the future due to magnetic breaking. if an accretion disk a light month across around a black hole The is due to the torque supplied by outflowing winds along emits a sudden flash, for example, when it evaporates a blob “stiff” magnetic field lines originating from this solar-type binary. of swirling, in-falling matter, the event would be seen as a Should we be looking for eclipses of the third component? light pulse spread out over an entire month as viewed from Our calculations show that the proposed dwarf orbiting at ~3.6 the earth. This would reveal that the object is one light month AU will never show any eclipses. across. However, in the case of the Miller model, this effect would be erased due to the near infinite speed of light. Actual observations tell us that quasar light curves vary on the order Decreasing Speed of Light? of light days. So they are light days across, hence they are In the situation where the speed of light is nearly infinite at probably due to black holes since these are on this order of the edge of the universe and equal to the value c in our local that size. Other cosmological light-time effects explain the 12 Creation Research Society Quarterly appearance of characteristics of jets emitted from the cores of active galactic nuclei, including the apparent superluminal motion, relativistic aberration, and the appearance of shocks and other features, which produce counterintuitive phenomena such as a single shock causing apparently separated features (Mioduszewski, at al., 1998). In addition, there is another observational effect that is governed by the speed of light, that is, Doppler shifts. Doppler shift is governed by the equation,

Doppler-shift radial velocity measurements are made on a regular basis for deep space objects, galactic jets, galaxy rotational velocities, etc. If cà in deep space, then the velocity measurements would go to . The observations do not show this. Figure 11. A black hole accretion disk flashes. However, due to its size (one light year across), the light curve pulse The Scriptural Basis will take one year to be wholly seen. This is a cosmological Lastly, we would like to examine the scriptural basis of the Miller example of a light-time effect. model. In reading the aforementioned passages and the verses surrounding them, we came across this reading in Joel 2:30–31. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into distant sources like stars, galaxies etc.) is “instantaneous.” This darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the would erase the freely observable light-time effects as noted terrible day of the LORD come. (KJV) in this paper. It gives the same results as Miller’s “universe in We immediately see the connection and a probable ex- real time.” Furthermore, we have corresponded with Jason planation of the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars. The Lisle about this and he responds that this problem has been darkening could be caused by dust, clouds, fumes from vol- answered in the literature. However, we challenge that it has canic eruptions, and impacts by asteroids and comets arising not yet been sufficiently answered in a public forum. from God’s judgment. This would darken and redden all light (moon, sun, stars, and galaxies) in the sky. Matthew Henry (1991) suggests much the same—that these passages refer to Summary the judgment of the wicked in the last days. He thinks that We find that the universe in near real time fails under observa- much of the description is figurative. tion, particularly due to the well-understood light-time effect, Finally, we admit to other possibilities. The aforementioned which is used regularly by the astronomical community and passages are all prophetic, during the season of end-time verified by independent observation. This paper serves as an miracles. God is the God of miracles, and He is particularly example of how real astronomical observations can aid the active here. Miller’s ideas would entail the continuous action creation community in testing proposed models, and it stresses of miracles rather then the rare occurrence of them, as during our need for our own professional creationary astronomical the end times. We also note that some elements of the passages observatory on a high-altitude, dry site. It also stresses the need are poetic such as the mountains flowing with milk etc. as Henry to train astronomical professionals for the future who can help believes. We believe these elements are sufficient to explain us establish a creation model in astronomy. We note that obser- the statements of Joel and Revelation. vations for the FY Bootis project were taken at a professional observatory with the instrumentation noted by the authors.

The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention As a postscript, we would like to note that the recent proposal References that is called the anisotropic synchrony convention (Lisle, 2011) CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly is also disallowed by light-time observations. The proposal sug- Aardsma, G.E. 1988. Minisymposium on the speed of light part I: has gests that the one-way travel time of light (in our direction from the speed of light decayed recently? Paper 1, CRSQ 25:36–44. Volume 48, Summer 2011 13

Aardsma, G.E. 1989. Response to Bowden. New Physics. Creation Book Publishers, light, and time. http://www.setterfield. CRSQ 25:208. Powder Springs, GA. org/report/report.html (as of January Batten, A.H. 1973. Binary and Multiple Henry, Matthew. 1991. Matthew Henry’s 10, 2011). Systems of Stars. Pergamon Press, Ox- Commentary on the Whole Bible: Isaiah Van Hamme, W.V., and R.E. Wilson. 1998. ford, UK. to Malachi. Hendrickson Publishers, Generalized Solution for Binary Star Bradstreet, D.H., and D.P. Steelman. 2002. Inc., Peabody, MA. Ephemerides and Apsidal Motion. Binary Maker 3.0 - An interactive graph- Holt, R.D. 1988. Minisymposium on the Bulletin of the American Astronomical ics-based light curve synthesis program speed of light part II: the speed of light Society 30:1402. written in Java, Bulletin of the American and pulsars. CRSQ 25:84–88. Wanser, K. 2003. Radioactive decay update: Astronomical Society 34:1224. Humphreys, D.R. 1988. Minisymposium on Breaking down the old age paradigm. Brown, R.H. 1988. Minisymposium on the the speed of light part 1: has the speed of Paper presented to the Creation Confer- speed of light part II: statistical analysis light decayed recently? Paper 2. CRSQ ence, West Harrison, IN. of the atomic constants, light and time. 25:40–45. Wilson, R.E. 1990. Accuracy and efficiency CRSQ 25:91–95. Lisle, Jason, 2011. The Anisotropty Syn- in the binary star reflection effect. Astro- Byl, J. 1988. Minisymposium on the speed of chrony Convention. Answers Magazine physical Journal 356:613–622. light part III: on small curved space mod- 6 (1):68–71. Wilson, R.E. 1994. Binary-star light curve els of the universe, CRSQ 25:138–140. Miller, Steve. 2010. The universe in near models. Publications of the Astronomical Chaffin, E.F. 1992. A determination of the real time. CRSQ 46:235. Society of the Pacific 106:921–941. speed of light in the seventeenth century. Mioduszewski, A.J., P.A. Hughes, and G.C. Wilson, R.E., and E.J. Devinney. 1971. CRSQ 29:115–120. Duncan. 1988. The effects of light travel Realization of accurate close-binary Diethelm, R. 2001. Times of minimum of time on the appearance of relativistic jets. light curves: application to MR Cygni. eclipsing binaries from ROTSE1 CCD In Zensus, J.A., G.B. Taylor, and J.M. Astrophysical Journal 166:605–619. data, II: suspected and recently named Wrobel (editors), IAU Colloquium 164: Wilson, R.E., and W.V. Van Hamme. 2003. variables. Information Bulletin on Vari- Radio Emission From Galactic And Ex- Stellar atmospheres in eclipsing binaries. able Stars #5038. tragalactic Compact Sources, ASP Con- GAIA Spectroscopy, Science and Technol- Harris, David M. 1978. A solution to seeing ference Series, Vol. 144, pp. 139–140, ogy, ASP Conference Series 298:323–328. stars. CRSQ. 15:112–115. Prša, A., and T. Zwitter. 2005. A compu- Zasche, P., and M. Wolf. 2007. Combining Hartnett, J.G. 2002. Is there any evidence tational guide to physics of eclipsing astrometry with the light-time effect: for the decay in c? Journal of Creation binaries. I. demonstrations and perspec- the case of VWCep, ζ Phe and HT 16: 89–94. tives. Astrophysical Journal 628:426–438. Vir. Astronomische Nachrichten 328(9): Hartnett, J.G., 2007. Starlight, Time and the Setterfield, B. 1987. The atomic constants, 928–937. 14 Creation Research Society Quarterly Documenting the Sedimentary and Stratigraphic Transition between the Middle/Upper Flood Event Divisions and the Lower/Middle Ice Age Divisions in and Surrounding Providence Canyon State Park, Stewart County, Georgia (U.S.A.)

Carl R. Froede Jr.*

Abstract rovidence Canyon State Park, Stewart County, Georgia (U.S.A.), Pand the surrounding vicinity provide an excellent location in which to define sediments and fossils within a Bible-based framework of Earth history. The results of this investigation indicate that the strata reflect the transition from a middle-shelf subaqueous marine setting to subaerial conditions. Within the Flood framework, these sediments and strata record the transition from the Middle/Upper Flood Event Divisions to the Lower/Middle Ice Age Divisions. The stratigraphy within the study area indicates that Floodwater retreated from this part of Georgia as a function of sea-level decline and the concomitant uplift of the coastal plain across southwestern Georgia.

Introduction specific work should eventually lead to sils. Understanding the changes in geo- The Genesis Flood was a singular event an understanding of the geologic energy logic energy expected during the Flood in Earth history. Any understanding of expended across a broader area and aid should allow the diluvial geoscientist to the geologic energy expended during in defining those sediments, rocks, and define the materials and features within this period can come only from the fossils within the geologic Timeframes/ their former depositional settings. For preserved rock record. While many Divisions of the Genesis Flood (Froede, example, we would expect the highest theoretical models and regional stud- 1995a, 2007; Figure 1). levels of geologic energy with the onset ies have been offered describing the Providence Canyon State Park, of the Flood followed by its reduction geological processes in operation dur- Stewart County, Georgia (U.S.A.), and with passing time (Reed et al., 1996; ing the Flood, validation of those ideas the surrounding vicinity provide many Froede, 2007). This knowledge should will require data collected from specific excellent exposures of sediments, sedi- allow correlation to a specific period locations. Conducting this location- mentary features, and trace and body fos- within the diluvial geologic timescale (Froede, 1995a, 2007). The application of this process within the study area (Figure 2) indicates that the strata re- * Carl R. Froede Jr., BS, PG, Snellville, GA flect the transition from a middle-shelf Accepted for publication January 19, 2011 marine environment to terrestrial condi- Volume 48, Summer 2011 15

Figure 2. The study area includes Providence Canyon State Park, Stewart County, Georgia, and surrounding vicinity. Multiple outcrops both in and around the park allow a stratigraphic construction consistent with a Biblical timescale (Froede, 2007, 2008b). Scale in miles.

Figure 1. This geologic timescale is strata record the transition from the of the Clayton Formation, which was consistent with the Biblical record of Middle/Upper Flood Event Divisions followed by: (1) subaerial exposure Earth history. The examination of sedi- to the Lower/Middle Ice Age Divisions and subsurface ferricrete development ments, rocks, and fossils at site-specific (Figure 3). The stratigraphy within the (Froede, 2010), and (2) channel devel- locations should allow their insertion study area indicates that Floodwater re- opment and infill by reworked Clayton into this timescale based on changes in treated from this portion of Georgia as a Formation clastics and ferricrete debris. geologic energy (see Reed et al., 1996; function of both actual sea-level decline The lowest exposed sediments (Ren- Froede, 2007). The sedimentary mate- and concomitant uplift. froes Marl of the Ripley Formation) rials composing the United States Gulf were deposited as silts and clays and and southern Atlantic Coastal Plains then bioturbated. They are overlain by suggest that Floodwater withdrew at a Providence Canyon cross-bedded quartz sands mixed with slow rate (Froede, 1995b, 1997; Froede Stratigraphy kaolin clays (Ripley Formation and and Reed, 1999). The sediments and In 1995, Williams offered a young-Earth Providence Formation). Ophiomorpha fossils exposed at Providence Canyon creationist perspective on the stratigra- trace fossils (created by burrowing State Park and the surrounding area phy and rapid formation of the many shrimp) have been identified in the reinforce this interpretation. canyons found at Providence Canyon Providence Formation (Figure 4). This State Park. Subsequently, Froede and type of trace would indicate that it was Williams (2004) explained the geology formed in marine conditions during the and hydrogeology of the park. Recently, Flood. Above the Providence Formation tions. Applying this setting to the Flood Froede (2008a) postulated the shallow are nearshore-to-littoral zone clastic sedi- framework would suggest that these marine deposition of the updip portion ments of the Clayton Formation. 16 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 3. The sediments and stratigraphy of the study area cover the transition from Figure 4. An Ophiomorpha trace in the middle Flood (Middle/Upper Flood Event Divisions) through the middle Ice the Providence Formation was cre- Age (Lower/Middle Ice Age Divisions; see Froede, 2007, 2008b). The stratigraphic ated by a burrowing shrimp. These profile presents the formation/member names, their sedimentary composition, and traces are found today in the marine inferred depositional setting relative to sea level. Modified from Veatch (1909), environment, and this trace fossil was Eargle (1955), Donovan and Reinhardt (1986), and Froede and Williams (2004). formed when Floodwater still covered this portion of southwestern Georgia. Scale in inches and centimeters.

Exposures along Georgia State Highway 39C Stratigraphic outcrops immediately outside of the park along Georgia State Highway 39C provide additional exposures of the Providence Formation, the Clayton Formation, and an unnamed stratigraphic unit that overlays and in places incises into the Clayton Forma- tion. An iron-cemented layer (i.e., ferricrete) of one to three inches in thickness occasionally occurs at the base of the Clayton Formation (Figure 5). Horizon- tal layers of ferricrete also occur higher in the Clayton Formation sediments at some locations. Rare marine fossils have been found in some of these iron-rich layers, and their carbonate skeletons have been replaced by hematite (Figure 6). The unnamed stratigraphic layer above the Clayton Formation is a massive sandy-clay layer (these sediments Figure 5. Ferricrete occurs at many locations between the Providence Formation were eroded from upgradient Clayton and overlying Clayton Formation (see Froede, 2007, chapter 5). Oxidation of the Formation exposures) containing fer- dissolved iron-rich groundwater caused the iron minerals to precipitate out of ricrete clasts of varying sizes (Figure 7). solution forming the ferricrete layer. Scale in six-inch (15-cm) divisions. Volume 48, Summer 2011 17

In some locations this unnamed unit incises the Clayton Formation (Figure 8). The age of this stratigraphic layer has not been resolved by geologists due to the lack of any datable body or plant fossils.

A Young-Earth Creationist Interpretation The sediments and strata exposed within the study area exhibit an ascending profile reflective of sea-level regression. Changes in geologic energy, as displayed by the sedimentary features within each stratigraphic unit, will allow us to assign the strata to specific time intervals within the diluvial geologic timescale (Figure 1). Through this exercise we will be able to understand the Biblical geologic his- Figure 6. Iron cement has replaced the carbonate skeleton of this former sea tory of this area within the context of the urchin. Fossils such as this one indicate that the Clayton Formation clastic sedi- Flood and ensuing Ice Age. ments were deposited in a marine setting. The general lack of any pronounced The Renfroes Marl is the lowest sedimentary structures (e.g., cross-bedding) in the Clayton Formation suggests exposed stratigraphic unit in Providence that it was deposited and reworked in a low-energy environment, indicating that Canyon State Park. A diluvial interpreta- Floodwater agitation had decreased. tion of this unit would place this marl in a submerged middle continental shelf setting. Sufficient organic content, oxygen, and time made it a prime target for rapid bioturbation by a variety of marine creatures (Froede, 2009). In the overlying Ripley and Providence formations, the high-angle cross-bedded sand indicates swift-moving currents. The depositional setting is envisioned as an inner-shelf to nearshore environment. High-energy conditions, coupled with a lack of organic content (as a food source), probably prevented these sediments from being extensively bioturbated. The contact between the Providence Formation and the overlying Clayton Formation reveals an energetic mixing zone that decreases in energy moving upward into the Clayton section (Fig- ure 9). The Clayton Formation sands were likely deposited and reworked in a nearshore-to-beach setting. Eventually, Figure 7. In many places, polished and unpolished ferricrete clasts of varying sizes Floodwater completely withdrew from line the sidewalls and bottom of the incised channels in the Clayton Formation. the area, marking the onset of the Ice This mixture of clasts and sediment is not indicative of fluvial transport, but rather Age Timeframe (Lower Ice Age Divi- suggests mudflow deposition. Scale in inches and centimeters. sion) (see Froede, 1995a, 2007). Tectonic 18 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 9. Kaolin clay clasts from the top of the Providence Formation are mixed with sands, silts, and clays at the base of Figure 8. In places, a massive sandy-clay layer covers and incises into the Clayton the Clayton Formation. This suggests Formation. This unnamed unit contains clasts of polished and unpolished ferri- that the Clayton Formation clastic crete mixed within the stratigraphic unit. The exposed cliff face is approximately sediments were derived from a different 25 feet high. sedimentary source and were deposited on top of the Providence Formation as geologic energy was decreasing and sea level was regressing. Scale in six-inch (15-cm) divisions uplift of this portion of southwestern eliminated the sandy mudflows across Georgia continued throughout the the area. This portion of Georgia re- Lower/Middle Ice Age Divisions. With mained for millennia in geomorphic the onset of subaerial conditions, the equilibrium until clear cutting of timber marine connate water was displaced by and poor farming practices began in This likely occurred over the course of ferrous groundwater as Floodwater con- the early/middle 1800s. Clearing of the several centuries as Floodwater gradu- tinued to withdraw from the area. The land, coupled with uncontrolled runoff, ally withdrew from the southwestern dissolved iron within the groundwater created conditions of rill, gully, and Georgia Coastal Plain. Inserting this was probably associated with the area of eventual canyon development across dynamic depositional setting in a man- uplift to the northeast. The oxidation of this area (Williams, 1995; Froede and ner consistent with a diluvial geologic the groundwater within the subsurface Williams, 2004). column would suggest that the strata created ferricrete layers, which likely found in the park and surrounding vi- formed over the course of several decades cinity record the transition from the (Ferguson et al., 1983; Phillips, 2000; Conclusion Middle/Upper Flood Event Divisions Phillips et al., 1997; Yager et al., 2003). A bottom-to-top study of the exposed to Lower/Middle Ice Age Divisions. With continued uplift across this strata in and surrounding Providence The strata suggest that Floodwater portion of southwestern Georgia, pre- Canyon State Park reveals an interesting slowly retreated from this portion of the cipitation eroded elevated areas, scoured geologic history. Applying the diluvial state due to a combination of sea-level channels, and filled them with reworked concept of changing geologic energy decline and concomitant uplift across Clayton Formation clastics and fer- to the exposed sediments suggests that the southwestern Georgia coastal plain. ricrete debris (Figure 8). The eventual the depositional setting changed from cessation of uplift and the establish- middle/inner continental shelf through Acknowledgments: This article is dedi- ment of a vegetative cover reduced or nearshore/beach to terrestrial conditions. cated to my friend Dr. Emmett L. Wil- Volume 48, Summer 2011 19

liams in gratitude for all of his excellent Froede, C.R., Jr. 1995a. A proposal for a dence from the Gulf of Mexico. CRSQ fieldwork at Providence Canyon State creationist geological timescale. CRSQ 36:51–60. Park. I have greatly enjoyed working 32:90–94. Froede, C.R., Jr., and E.L. Williams. 2004. with him and have profited from his Froede, C.R., Jr. 1995b. Late Cretaceous The origin, development, and eventual knowledge and experience gained in epeiric sea or retreating Floodwater? consolidation of the canyons comprising studying this area. I am grateful for the CRSQ 32:13–16. Providence Canyon State Park, Stewart very capable constructive reviews and Froede, C.R., Jr. 1997. The Flood Event/ County, Georgia. Southeastern Geology comments provided by A. Jerry Akridge, Ice Age stratigraphic boundary on the 43:39–50. Emmett L. Williams, and the CRS geol- United States Southeastern Coastal Phillips, J.D. 2000. Rapid development of ogy editor. Gratitude is also expressed to Plain. CRSQ 34:75–83. ferricretes on a subtropical valley side the anonymous peer reviewers for their Froede, C.R., Jr. 2007. Geology by Design: slope. Geografiska Annaler 82A:69–78. helpful comments. I thank my wife, Interpreting Rocks and their Catastrophic Phillips, J.D., M. Lampe, R.T. King, M. Susan, for allowing me the time and Record. Master Books. Green Forest, ARs. Cedillo, R. Beachley, and C. Grantham. opportunity to research and write this Froede, C.R., Jr. 2008a. Defining the 1997. Ferricrete formation in the North article. Any mistakes that may remain neareshore (sic) marine to fluvial transi- Carolina Coastal Plain. Zeitschrift für are my own. Glory to God in the highest! tion in the updip clastic lithofacies of the Geomorphologie 41(1):67–79. Proverbs 3:5–6. Clayton Formation (Lower Paleocene) Reed, J.K., C.R. Froede Jr., and C.B. Ben- across the west-central Georgia Coastal nett. 1996. The role of geologic energy Plain (U.S.A.). Southeastern Geology in interpreting the stratigraphic record. References 46(1):25–35. CRSQ 33:97–101. CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly Froede, C.R., Jr. 2008b. Sedimentary and Veatch, O. 1909. Second Report on the Donovan, A.D., and J. Reinhardt. 1986. Stratigraphic Evidence of the Genesis Clay Deposits of Georgia. Bulletin 18. Providence Canyons: The Grand Can- Flood and the Transition to the Post-Flood Geological Survey of Georgia, Atlanta, yon of southwest Georgia. In Neathery, Ice Age: Geologic Guidebook to Provi- Georgia. T.L. (editor), Southeastern Section dence Canyon State Park. Self-published, Williams, E.L. 1995. Providence Canyon, of the Geological Society of America: Atlanta, GA. Stewart County, Georgia—evidence of Centennial Field Guide Volume 6, pp. Froede, C.R., Jr. 2009. Sediment bioturba- recent rapid erosion. CRSQ 32:29–43. 359–362. Geological Society of America, tion experiments and the actual rock Yager, D.B., S.E. Church, P.L. Verplanck, Boulder, CO. record. Journal of Creation 23(3):3–5. and L. Wirt. 2003. Ferricrete, Mangano- Eargle, D.H. 1955. Stratigraphy of the Out- Froede, C.R., Jr. 2010. Groundwater- crete, and Bog Iron Occurrences with cropping Cretaceous Rocks of Georgia. developed ferricretes in the updip clastic Selected Sedge Bogs and Active Iron Bogs Bulletin 1014. U.S. Geological Survey, lithofacies of the Clayton Formation and Springs in the Upper Animas River Washington, DC. (Lower Paleocene) across the coastal Watershed, San Juan County, Colorado. Ferguson, J., R.V. Burne, and L.A. Chambers. plain of west-central Georgia (USA). Miscellaneous field studies map MF- 1983. Iron mineralization of peritidal car- Southeastern Geology 47(4):219–226. 2406 (Version 1.0). Scale 1:24,000. U.S. bonate sediments by continental ground- Froede, C.R., Jr., and J.K. Reed. 1999. As- Geological Survey, Washington, DC. waters, Fisherman Bay, South Australia. sessing creationist stratigraphy with evi- Sedimentary Geology 34:41–57. 20 Creation Research Society Quarterly “Geotheory”: Past and Present

John K. Reed, Peter Klevberg*

Abstract he closing decades of the eighteenth century saw the beginnings Tof modern geohistory. Recent work by historians of science have broken through the persistent mythology of Hutton-Playfair-Lyell, and many lessons have been drawn from a better understanding of the early fusion of secularized science and secularized history. But one lesson that has received little attention is the inhibitive role played by “geotheory,” a genre of scientific writing popular in the last half of the eighteenth century. Geotheories were broad systematic attempts to scientifically explain Earth in its totality. They proved a barrier to the development of geology because of (1) their unrealistic scope, (2) unrealistic expectations, and (3) an unrealistic adherence to the hypothetico-deductive method of Newtonian physics, which in turn was related to serious misunderstandings of the limits of science and the nature of history. Numerous geotheories were published, each attempting to build a comprehensive explanation of Earth. By 1800, geotheory had fallen out of favor, replaced by inductive, limited, self-consciously historical investigations. Yet since geotheory reflects an innate drive in the human psyche for comprehensive understanding, it never really died. Our view of science and its disciplines is much different now, but facets of geotheory still exist—evolution being a secular example and grand “Flood models” a creationist manifestation.

Introduction Mayans for their mathematics. At root, understanding. Despite the distortion Mankind has a penchant for explaining though, most explanations are religious, from the Fall, man the image-bearer still his world—from the ancient creation reflecting the indelible image of God seeks to know his world. myths to modern social theory. Greece and Augustine’s heart-shaped vacuum. Beginning in medieval Europe, was famed for its philosophy, the Chi- Man was made to exercise dominion knowledge came to reside in the nese for their technology, and the over the created order, and that required burgeoning universities, so named for their quest of finding unity of truth in the diversity of phenomena. Christian- ity drove this process, leading to the * John K. Reed, Evans, Georgia, [email protected] development of modern Western sci- Peter Klevberg, B.S., P.E., Great Falls, Montana, [email protected] ence after the Reformation. It was an Accepted for publication January 15, 2011 evolutionary, not a revolutionary devel- Volume 48, Summer 2011 21

opment (Hooykaas, 1999). Newton was fossils, minerals, volcanoes, and river via the law of universal gravitation. Geo- born during the English Revolution, valleys—that were a growing area of theories were typically based on a few a contemporary of John Bunyan, and interest among the savants. It was only initial assumptions and the deductive saw the end of the Puritan Age and the natural that this new discipline would application of nature’s “laws,” leading beginnings of the post-Puritan deism. assume the role of the guardian of the inevitably to the grand truth. The genre Unfortunately, because science required prehuman prehistory that leading intel- attracted many of the best minds of the a methodological distinction from theol- lectuals were promoting as an antidote eighteenth century, and a “theory of ogy, many grew to believe that it could to Moses, since the story of those vast the earth” was considered the crowning be completely severed from theology eons resided in the rock record. Of achievement of a career in the “Repub- without consequence. Combined with course, our understanding of geology’s lic of Letters.” a growing antipathy towards orthodox origins has advanced significantly in Though Rudwick (2005) claims that Christianity in the early eighteenth recent decades, largely thanks to serious geotheory died in the early nineteenth century, it laid the groundwork for the historians of science who have finally rid century, it is all too clear that the demise use of science as an enemy of theology us of the self-serving myth of the British was really a short slumber. When we rather than an ally. invention of geology through Hutton, examine the basics of geotheory, we see Despite the American and British Playfair, and Lyell. Reading the primary current examples in both secular and revivalism of Edwards, Whitefield, and sources has led these historians to recog- Christian circles. Identification requires the Wesleys, the church languished nize the wide variety of people and ideas only that we grasp the essentials of the during the eighteenth century (less so in that contributed to geology (e.g., Gould, original genre. It was distinct from the America than in Europe), and orthodoxy 1987; Hooykaas, 1963, 1970; Laudan, more mundane descriptive and explana- was becoming increasingly irrelevant to 1987; Rudwick, 2005, 2008). tory disciplines of the day, having more the growing class of intellectuals. Deism Although a better and more sophis- in common with the philosophical and unitarianism were symptomatic of ticated understanding of the times has system building of the continental ra- this growing trend; the Reformation been gained, almost all of these histori- tionalists and Immanuel Kant. was over. This era was marked by the ans fail to understand Christianity and Rudwick (2005) places the origin of emergence of an international group of therefore lose sight of its role—first as geotheory in Thomas Burnet’s (1635– savants that Rudwick (2005) called the the mother of science (Glover, 1984; 1715) Sacred Theory of the Earth but “Republic of Letters.” These intellectu- Hooykaas, 1999; Reed, 2001; Stark, notes that Burnet was heavily influenced als corresponded, traveled, and found 2003) and later as its foil. They record, by Descartes (1596–1650)—a cautionary common cause with like-minded men but seem not to grasp, the depth of example of how ideas in the sciences who were eager to unlock the mysteries antagonism inherent in the secular are often driven by trends in first-order of nature. Their heterodoxy may have worldview that was the product of the philosophy. Geotheory became more appeared benignly eccentric at the time, Enlightenment. Similarly, they do not prevalent (and more anti-Christian) in but as the century progressed it became grasp the importance of church history. the latter half of the eighteenth century, increasingly rigid and rabid, leading to Thus, a complete history of geology’s following the works of Georges-Louis a crescendo of atheistic fervor culminat- origin awaits the historian of science Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1749, 1778). ing in the French Revolution. In all the who can add those missing ingredients. But what started so well ended in frus- varieties of unbelief, there were several But the current accounts are infi- tration because the ideas could not constants; the rejection of the Bible and nitely superior to what Gould (1987) ultimately be proven or falsified. Once a growing confidence that knowledge called the empiricist cardboard myth that became clear, the genre faded, anchored in science was sure and cer- perpetuated by Lyell and far too many replaced in the early 1800s by more tain, while that anchored in faith was generations of his followers. These re- inductive methods (Laudan, 1987) that weak and confused. Science became the cent histories reach into the social fabric emphasized limited empirical studies new “revelation,” replacing Scripture as of the times and rely on primary sources. of the rock record. The work of Smith, the basis for truth—a position that only These have resulted in a fresh under- Cuvier, and the savants of the London belatedly has been shown to threaten standing of methods and ideas. One Geological Society was a clear break both truth and science. of the lesser examined but significant from and reaction to geotheory. Geology was born during those of these is what Rudwick (2005) called But the drive for grand explanations turbulent times to provide an explana- “geotheory”—an enthusiastic search for never really died. We need look no tion for physical phenomena associated a terrestrial synthesis to equal Newton’s further than evolution to see a prime with Earth’s crustal features—strata, achievement, which explained so much example. As a fundamental principle 22 Creation Research Society Quarterly of the earth, life, and the cosmos, evolution is a template for comprehensive explanation of the past, present, and future. Though Darwin discussed species, modern evolutionists attempt to explain everything in their grand materialistic synthesis. Additionally, elements of geotheory can be found in other modern secular ideas like the big bang and plate tectonics. Nor are secular thinkers the only modern “geotheorists.” This concept has even begun to crop up in modern creation science, with marked similarities between geotheory and various grand “Flood models.” Thus, it is of concern to creationists, and we need to understand the Enlightenment origin of the genre to evaluate its coherence with Figure 1. Sciences of the earth during the eighteenth century as described by the Christian worldview. This includes Rudwick (2005). Note the absence of familiar boundaries between geology, biol- its historical context, its distinguishing ogy, physics, and chemistry, which were not recognized at the time. criteria, and the distinctions between it and the subsequent geohistorical work in the earth sciences.

mathematics itself…. The phrase Earth, including its past development Historical Context “natural history” therefore denoted and future prospects. No comparison between Enlightenment the description of the natural world, Geotheory must also be understood and modern-day geotheories can be and the orderly classification of its in its intellectual context. As is true in made without understanding the dif- diversity, without any temporal con- most cases, the best perspective is gained ferences between scientific disciplines notations whatever (Rudwick, 2005, from examining contemporary trends in relevant to the study of the earth in pp. 52, 53, emphasis his). theology and philosophy. In theology, the eighteenth century. Although both Thus, the scientific disciplines of the the Reformation and the Puritan era eighteenth-century and modern secu- earth in the 1700s resided under three were over. Skepticism had replaced the larists believe the scientific method the major headings: natural history, natural earlier zeal for Biblical theology and only doorway to truth, the appearance philosophy, and geotheory (Figure 1). the worldview that had marked those of that doorway has changed in many Natural history was primarily a descrip- historical movements. Yet their influ- ways. Rudwick (2005) devotes an entire tive endeavor, including the acquisitive ences were still felt, albeit in a distorted chapter to explaining them, and what we branch of mineralogy and the field stud- fashion. For example, the Christian present here is largely a synopsis of his ies of physical geography and geognosy. belief in the unity of truth within the work. To begin with, he notes: The former concentrated on landforms diversity of knowledge was clearly inher- There was a major distinction be- and surface phenomena, while the ent in geotheory, although the corollary, tween two complementary ways of latter was concerned with the three- that truth could be guaranteed only by studying the natural world. “Natural dimensional knowledge of the crust and God, had been lost in the glitter of the history” dealt with the description especially its sedimentary layers. Natural scientific age. and classification of natural phe- philosophy attempted causal explana- The church was in poor shape to nomena and natural objects of all tion of various observed phenomena, correct these errors, and too weak, de- kinds. “Natural philosophy”—or typically relying heavily on the new spite the revivals of the 1730s and 40s. what Diderot called the “science of physics. Geotheory was the synthesizing A symptom of this weakness was the nature”—included the causal and of the observations of natural history truncated cultural penetration of revival- mathematical relations between and explanations of natural philosophy ism. In England, Wesleyanism had little natural phenomena, as well as to create an overarching synthesis of impact on the continent, and with a few Volume 48, Summer 2011 23

notable exceptions, such as Jonathan who built a tremendously influential of fossils, important though such Edwards, revivals failed to win back the anti-Christian system. problems were. On the contrary, a scholars—a hallmark of the Reformation Yet even the most rabid Enlighten- system would try in principle to in- and Puritanism. This led to an increas- ment atheist unconsciously absorbed clude all such limited explanations ingly secularized intellectual class—the parts of Europe’s pervasive Christianity, within a single, overarching causal “Republic of Letters”—that was increas- and Christian theology informed many theory.… The aim was to emulate ingly hostile to orthodox Christianity. of the unexamined presuppositions on a terrestrial scale the achievement Thus, a strong theological defense of the of these thinkers (Glover, 1984; Reed, of Newton in the realm of celestial Christian worldview was lacking just at a 2001). This was reflected in their opti- mechanics. It was to discover the one time when it was most needed. The “salt” mistic humanism and trust in truth in and only true explanation of how the of the church, though still widespread both science and history, despite the lack earth works, just as Newton was be- in popular culture, had failed to prevent of a coherent epistemology for either. lieved … to have discovered the one the rot in those savants that would drive Thus, geotheory was an interesting mix and only true theory to explain the the secularization of Western culture. of ideas marking the transition from the movements of the sun and its planets, The pall of “Enlightenment” dark- vibrant Christianity of the seventeenth and all other stars and their putative ness is ironic in many respects. The century to the looming atheism of later planets throughout the universe, un- incurable optimism that drove the rise years. In retrospect, there was a danger- der the laws of universal gravitation. of humanism with its fervent faith in sci- ous combination of a blissful ignorance, In other words, “Theory of the Earth” ence would not have been possible with- naïveté of the complexity of creation, … was not just a human conjecture out the development of natural science and an unwarranted optimism in the or “hypothesis”, which might or spurred on by the Reformation (Reed, human potential to comprehend it. might not be valid. It was Nature’s (or 2001; Schaeffer, 1982). Natural science God’s) hidden construction, which opened doors for applied science, ac- another Newton might one day have celerating the pace of technological Geotheory the honor of discovering (Rudwick, innovation that came to be known as 2005, pp. 133–134). the Industrial Revolution. Growing What Was Geotheory? At first glance, this seems foreign prosperity predictably spurred a turn This naïveté and unwarranted optimism to modern thought, but is perhaps less from God. “Give me neither poverty were manifested in the short-lived so than we think. Though theology nor riches; feed me with the food that is enthusiasm for geotheory. A “theory and first-order philosophy have been my portion; that I not be full and deny of the earth” was the pinnacle of an jettisoned, materialistic science still You and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or that eighteenth-century intellectual career. possesses a schizophrenic drive for unify- I not be in want and steal, and profane Men spent years doing the more mun- ing explanation. The rationalism of the the name of my God” (Proverbs 30:8b-9 dane work of gathering and publishing geotheorists has evolved into modern NASB). Europe’s elite benefited from natural history and natural philosophy, positivism, and scientists from both peri- a science rooted in Christianity while while building a foundation for a grand ods still tend to overestimate their ability hypocritically turning it into a weapon synthesis that would attempt to explain to reach truth. For example, “evolution” against the church. Earth in terms of a few comprehensive as a general principle is applied with First-order philosophy played its part natural laws. These laws, it was thought, equal zest to the origin of galaxies or in the religious disinterest of savants. would break the code to the workings of various human behaviors—Enlighten- The continental philosophers, with their man’s terrestrial home in the way that ment savants would certainly recognize love of system, degenerated rapidly away Newton had deciphered man’s cosmic its breadth of application in terms of from the Christian rationalism of Des- surroundings. geotheory. But a closer examination of cartes toward the deism and pantheism The ultimate goal of many savants the Enlightenment genre is needed be- of Leibniz and Spinoza. Europe’s elite concerned with the sciences of fore we can make a careful comparison. deserted the faith, and the 1700s was an the earth was to construct what By the late 1700s, intellectuals had age of transition. In Britain, heresy took they called a “system” or high-level identified the normative features or rules a different path. Locke’s fundamental theory about the earth. This would for the genre. Rudwick (2005) identifies error in confusing first and second in- be not merely a theory to explain six key principles common to all (Figure tentions of the mind (Adler, 1985) led specific features such as the eleva- 2). The ideal geotheory would: eventually to the radical skepticism of tion of mountains, the consolida- • Explain Earth’s major features, Hume, which in turn “awakened” Kant, tion of rocks, or the emplacement such as oceans, continents, 24 Creation Research Society Quarterly

in order to demonstrate their confidence in their fundamental principles! • Explain everything from theology to fossils. Since Earth was home to man, human nature and actions had to be addressed. Rudwick (2005, p. 138) notes the disjunction between this approach and modern thought, since for Enlightenment thinkers, “any modern distinction between “scientific” and “non- scientific” questions would have been regarded as inappropriate and indeed meaningless.”

Figure 2. Characteristics of eighteenth-century geotheories, based on Rudwick Examples of (2005). Enlightenment Geotheory Of the numerous geotheories of the eighteenth century, several stand out as examples of the genre, signposts to the future, and strong influences on the mountains, strata, volcanoes, actualism to eliminate God development of modern geology in the fossils, and rivers. Earth was from the discussion. early 1800s. Rudwick (2005) discusses viewed as a complex machine • Describe past, present, and the ideas of Buffon, presented in two or entity, and explanation was future developments on Earth. distinct geotheories, those of de Luc, required to be equally complex. This illustrates the extent to and finally, Hutton’s strange system as • Be restricted to natural explana- which the scientific mind-set influential examples of geotheory. tion. God might be retained as of Newtonian physics had been Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte the ultimate cause, but phe- cemented into the minds of de Buffon (1707–1788) (Figure 3), nomena were expected to have savants, in conflict with the a “secondary” or natural cause. linear, progressive time of Bib- This mechanistic method would lical history. In this context, it lay the groundwork for a mecha- is easy to understand how the nistic metaphysic (Glover, 1984) steady-state views of Hutton, for by gradually stepping away from example, developed, and the the traditional Reformation view tension between scientific and of divine providence (Hooykaas, historical explanation continues 1999). to this day. • Be actualistic. The contingent • Explain in a hypothetico-deduc- actualism that worked so well tive fashion. Contrary to a later for physical science was a dif- inductive emphasis, geotheorists ferent matter for history, be- would present foundational cause the latter was grounded principles, deduce implications, in special revelation in a way and then present selective sup- in which the former was not. porting evidence to “prove” their Unfortunately, Enlightenment implications. Rudwick (2005, Figure 3. Georges-Louis Leclerc, atheists and deists realized this p. 137) notes that some savants Comte de Buffon, author of two influ- sooner than Christians, and even presented their theory ential and atheistic geotheories of the subtly altered the concept of before they gathered evidence eighteenth century. Volume 48, Summer 2011 25 decades ahead of Lyell, published two his understanding of it was vague and grand systems—the first, an implicitly subject to change by natural knowledge. eternalistic steady-state universe in his The theme of his geotheory was that the 1749 Histoire naturelle, and the second, continents and sea floor had exchanged a chronological history in his 1778 places in a recent “revolution” just a few Époques de la nature (for more detail, millennia ago, which he identified as the see Reed, 2010). Although little, if any, Biblical Flood. De Luc’s determined of his “scientific” content survived, his but shaky defense of Genesis provides a aggressively anti-Christian materialism barometer of the times. and ability to thumb his nose at the De Luc was well aware that to men- church (thanks to royal protection) set tion Genesis at all in a “philosophi- the mood for the rest of the century. cal” or scientific work was to invite Completely ignoring any semblance a kneejerk reaction from many other of Biblical authority, he presented the savants. Far from expressing a view development of a world without God, a that was triumphantly dominant in Figure 5. James Hutton, Scottish min- sad parody of Burnet’s Christian theory. his culture (as often portrayed by eralogist and “father” of uniformitar- His strength was not his science, but his modern historical myth making), de ian geology. trailblazing arrogant materialist heresy. Luc as a self-consciously Christian Buffon’s models for the earth’s philosophe regarded himself as one temporal development were highly of an embattled minority, indeed as conjectural and could easily be part of a minority within a minority the prior work of French savants. Ironi- dismissed as no better than a form (Rudwick, 2005, p. 153). cally, Rudwick (2005, p. 172) provides of science fiction. Yet although most Ironically, we owe the origin of the perhaps the best epitaph for Hutton, not- of their details were later abandoned, word “geology” to his work; he coined ing, “A sense of the history of the earth, both of Buffon’s geotheories were the term in his 1778 Letters on Moun- whatever its source may have been, to remain powerful and fruitful tains as a substitute for “cosmology.” certainly did not come from Hutton.” exemplars for the future (Rudwick, Thus, the first meaning of “geology” was Finally, Rudwick (2005) describes 2005, p. 150). geotheory. what he calls the “standard model” Jean André de Luc (1727–1817) Finally, Hutton’s profoundly misun- geotheory because it was common to (Figure 4) was a Swiss naturalist and a derstood and misrepresented geotheory many published theories of the earth. Its tutor to Queen Charlotte of Britain. In was proposed relatively late compared to central idea was that of a receding ocean; contrast to Buffon, de Luc defended continental savants, and not completed today we call it “Neptunism” and mis- the reality of Biblical history, although until 1795. His deistic, teleological, takenly attribute it to Werner. Though steady state earth machine is far re- Werner taught the concept, it preceded moved from the Hutton (Figure 5) of him and was based on the regression of geologic lore (Reed, 2008a). a primordial ocean which precipitated Above all, however, Hutton’s work Arduino’s “primary” and “secondary” has been misunderstood because rocks as it gradually fell. Werner never it has not been treated, as it was by published a geotheory. his contemporaries, as yet another In fact, geotheories based on a falling “system” within the well-established global sea level were so general that genre of geotheory (Rudwick, 2005, they will be grouped together here p. 158). and termed the standard model of Though dismissed by many of his the earth’s temporal development contemporaries, who were tiring of the (Rudwick, 2005, p. 173). profusion of geotheories and who saw Thus, the controversy over the Earth’s history in chronological rather origin of basalt between Hutton the than ahistorical terms, Hutton ironically “Plutonist” and Werner the “Neptunist” Figure 4. Jean André de Luc, court tu- became the “father of modern geology” would be distorted into an argument tor to Queen Charlotte and defender thanks to Lyell’s rewrite of the discipline over the world ocean and the Flood. of the Genesis Flood. that deliberately downplayed or ignored Some Lyellian propagandists would 26 Creation Research Society Quarterly

even present Werner as a defender of the time. The second conceptual source is inarguable that British geologists and Biblical Flood to bolster Lyell’s carefully was the secular analogue of biblical their theories increasingly ruled geology crafted but false image of Hutton as the religion, namely the work of “erudite” for most of the rest of the nineteenth empiricist who discovered deep time in historians and “antiquarians” in the century. the rocks, as against the deductive theo- practice of human history, which logians who clung to the Flood. was expanding at just this time from its traditional focus on written texts The Resurrection of Geotheory The Fate of to embrace a much wider range of Aspects of geotheory survive into the Enlightenment Geotheory evidence (Rudwick, 2005, p. 642, present. In fact, one might make the Like a comet, geotheory blazed through brackets added). argument that it never died; it simply the late Enlightenment before disin- In the face of that “hard” scien- retreated into the background for a time. tegrating under the weight of its own tific study, the rambling speculations of Each generation is quick to overestimate unrealistic expectations, and this trend geotheories began to appear weak and the ignorance of their predecessors may be of great relevance to creationists. ineffective. Furthermore, geotheorists and underestimate their own. Grand Geotheory was displaced by a competing became their own worst enemies. The explanatory theories are typically the paradigm of natural studies that empha- popularity of the genre produced a result of that twin prejudice. Modern sized limited field studies with infer- number of competing works, none of geotheory has revealed itself in two dis- ences drawn inductively while in search which could be proven superior to the tinct trends—secular and religious. We of evidence in nature, rather than from others because few of their assertions will examine each in turn. deductive principles. This new approach could be tested. This was largely due to was seen in the work of men like Nicolas their deductive approach. Secular Resurrections of Geotheory Desmarest (1725–1815) and Jean-Louis Hutton’s was openly hypothetico- Perhaps geotheory is an inevitable Girard Soulavie (1752–1813), which deductive; he propounded it before manifestation of a fundamental aspect culminated in that of Cuvier, with his undertaking fieldwork to find evi- of human nature, and for that reason it emphasis on empirical paleontology, dence to confirm it (Rudwick, 2005, will never really disappear. Mankind has and William Smith and his stratigraphic p. 642, emphasis his). an insatiable desire for comprehensive mapping of England. It became the Perhaps another contributing factor explanation, and mankind apart from chosen approach of the rising class of was the weakening of the ties between God must find it in himself, in nature, gentlemen geologists in England, whose the “Republic of Letters” during the or in some hidden principle of history fieldwork would set the standard for geol- French Revolution and Napoleonic (Schlossberg, 1983), such as Marx’s class ogy for many years. wars. Ill feelings toward France were struggle. However, the age of science However, in Saussure’s time [late inevitable, despite attempts by savants pushes people toward natural expla- 1700s] a few savants were beginning to continue transcending national nations of physical phenomena, and to treat the earth as the product of na- boundaries even when their respective perhaps that is why secular examples of ture’s own history.… They were try- nations were at war, and the English, “geotheory” have rebounded and gained ing to construct narratives of events who had come out on top in that bitter popularity. or states that could not be predicted struggle, were not inclined to generosity. However, one difference in modern … from any assumptions about initial Perhaps this partly explains Lyell’s saga thought has been the conscious iden- conditions, but only pieced together that placed the origin of geology with tification of disciplines not recognized from detailed analysis of specific rel- James Hutton, rather than Desmarest, as such in the eighteenth and early ics from the deep past. There were Soulavie, or Dolomieu. nineteenth centuries. Today, we differ- two related sources for this new sense While the technical elite of “natural entiate between biology, geology, and of “geohistory.” … Ironically, the first history” and “geognosy” were concen- astronomy, even when they are address- was the radically historical perspec- trated in Germany, the key players ing the mutual concept of natural history. tive of the Judeo-Christian tradition. jousting over geotheory were French and Early naturalists would not have recog- Rather than being the enemy of English. As time wore on, geotheory- nized these distinctions. Thus modern progress in the sciences of the earth, riddled English influence continued “geotheories” tend to remain anchored as later mythmaking has portrayed it, to grow, not only in the contemporary to particular disciplines, although their this orientation fostered the exten- and previous parts of the British Empire implications are broader. sion of historicity to the previously but elsewhere in Europe as well (Bør- Evolution is the primary example uncharted vastness of prehuman resen and Wale, 2008). In any case, it of modern geotheory. Starting as a bio- Volume 48, Summer 2011 27

interpretation is done today without some reference to or implication of plate tectonics. With the death of Lyellian uniformitarianism, plate tectonics has joined deep time as one of the main integrating principles of geology.

Diluvial Resurrections of Geotheory Secular scientists are not alone in resur- recting geotheory. Within a few decades of the rebirth of Biblical creation, creation scientists were engaged in attempting to construct speculative models of the Biblical Flood. Some are broader, attempting to unify the Bible’s teaching of Creation, the antediluvian world, the Deluge, and its aftermath into one Figure 6. Evolution qualifies as a resurrected form of eighteenth-century geo- comprehensive model (e.g., Creation theory. The only difference is the inability of human observers to see evolution in Symphony, 1996). Perhaps the first, in action, requiring the substitution of inference for observation as is done with and by far the most comprehensive, was “microevolution” and biostratigraphy. the hydroplate theory of Brown (1980), which has grown in scope and complexity with succeeding editions of his book. At the same time, one of the better (and largely unrecognized as such) debates logical theory of speciation, it quickly a scale of both space and time to make over a Flood model was winding down. assumed the role as the underlying prin- definitive observation and testing impos- After extended published disputation ciple of the entire universe to the point sible. Thus, both evolution and plate in the 1970s and 80s, the early “vapor that its twentieth-century enthusiasts tectonics cannot be observed but are canopy” model was laid aside, although would say that “the whole of reality is inferred from observation. However, the work continues on lesser versions (Rush evolution” (Huxley, 1955, p. 272). There reality of nineteenth-century geotheory and Vardiman, 1992; Vardiman, 2003). is no question that it meets all of the was perhaps less actualistic than adver- Another limited model was that intro- criteria of eighteenth-century geotheory tised; Hutton certainly went far beyond duced in 1990 by Oard for a post-diluvial (Figure 6). It is systematic, naturalistic, observation in his speculations. Plate Ice Age. Its propositions were defensible, actualistic, timeless (at least in the sense tectonics is timeless; it is a fundamental and it has been largely accepted. But that it is an eternal fundamental prin- process of Earth, inherent to its physical the drive for grand explanatory theories ciple of matter), hypothetico-deductive makeup, and spans the entire history of took a step forward with the highly (the reality is contrary to the claims of its the crust. Like evolution, it pretends to publicized and promoted catastrophic proponents), and comprehensive. be an inductive conclusion, but in real- plate tectonics theory (CPT) (Austin et Other examples are not as complete ity, it is a deduction pressed on the data. al., 1994). CPT and Brown’s hydroplate or as fundamental as evolution, but the This is demonstrated by the rigidity of have found company in ideas of similar big bang theory and plate tectonics meet plate tectonic theory; contrary data have scope (e.g., Creation in Symphony, 1996; many of these criteria. Although not as not caused modification or rejection Budd, 1998; Fischer, 1992; 1994; 2006; systematic as evolution, plate tectonics of the theory and in many cases they Gentet, 2000; Tyler, 2006). claims to explain most geological and are simply ignored or addressed with Why creationists seem determined geophysical phenomena. It might be ad hoc explanations (e.g., responses to to follow the trend toward modern geo- seen as the evolution of geotheory within Beloussov, the Meyerhoffs, and other theory remains uncertain. Perhaps it is later changes in the definitions of the critics). Plate tectonics is not compre- simply human nature. There is a desire disciplines. It is certainty naturalistic, hensive in the eighteenth-century sense, for creationists to “catch up” to their sec- but it suffers the same problem as evolu- but it is comprehensive within the modular colleagues, proving that “creation tion in regard to actualism—it exists on ern domain of earth science. Very little science” is the equal of secular science. 28 Creation Research Society Quarterly

There is also a desire to leverage the work of secularists and apply it in Flood models. This is seen by the embrace of many creationists of the geological timescale and its chronostratigraphy. It is a crucial component of the recolonization model and CPT. Both explicitly use the relative stratigraphic scheme of the timescale to drive key tenets of their model, despite it being an encapsulation of secular natural history and as such embodying both uniformitarian and evolutionary thought. At present, the two most popular models among creationists are CPT, which since 1994 has been primarily the work of Baumgardner, and the hydroplate theory. Their popularity stems largely from their promotion—CPT by creationist organizations and hydroplate by Brown’s own organization and iterative editions of his book. We will examine their similarities and dis- similarities with geotheory, although a Figure 7. A comparison of the two major Flood models to the criteria for eigh- similar analysis could be done for any teenth-century geotheory shows many similarities. Neither is as comprehensive of the Flood models (Figure 7). as evolution; both are self-limiting to natural phenomena apart from man and Using the criteria shown in Figure 2, God. Catastrophic plate tectonics is more limited and inductive than hydroplate, it is clear that both models share many but both share the hypothetico-deductive bent of the hard sciences and claim tendencies of eighteenth-century geo- unequivocally to represent historical reality. theory. Both speculate about historical events for which there is little possibility of scientific testing. CPT claims a systematic and comprehensive status: In my view, as creationists we should tion of the Deluge. However, both are runaway subduction. Though neither be labouring with every resource we naturalistic in assuming that the events addresses Earth’s future, both models have at our disposal to bring to frui- and processes of the Noahic Flood can claim to present an accurate picture tion a comprehensive Flood geology be completely explained scientifically. of the past and to explain present-day model/framework that accounts not In other words, God initiated the pro- observations. only for large-scale tectonic phenom- cess, and physical laws took over. Like Methods of scientific reasoning in ena but also from details of sediment modern secular geology, the actualistic natural history are crucial yet seldom deposition and erosion patterns and method of both models is limited. Past examined. Brown addresses his method tectonics at a regional and local scale catastrophic events cannot be examined briefly; Baumgardner does not. Laudan (Baumgardner, 2002, p. 81). by modern analogues, and many of the (1987) discussed five methods that have Brown’s hydroplate model is actu- conditions and processes of both mod- historically been used in geology (Figure ally more comprehensive than CPT. It els are outside the scope of geological 8). Her analysis is interesting, yet it is also purports to explain a great number of observation. For example, no modern illustrative of the futility of attempting to phenomena and presents a number of observation can confirm or disprove the justify truth through science. A tangled predictions by which it could potentially historical existence of a layer of subter- web of epistemology underlies each be tested. Both are theistic in the sense ranean supercritical water, just as none of the different methods and typically of affirming God’s existence, creative can confirm or disprove the special presents a Gordian knot of confusion works, and at least secondary causa- mantle conditions necessary to initiate that could easily be cut by the orthodox Volume 48, Summer 2011 29

Figure 8. Laudan’s (1987) analysis of scientific methods applicable to geology and natural history.

Christian position that truth comes history. She presents five methods that can benefit from forensic applications of by revelation, and as a consequence have been applied to geology: (1) hy- science. Vera causa requires a burst of in- empirical human observations rest on pothesis, (2) Vera Causa, (3) analogy, (4) sight to derive a hypothesis to which true assumptions that can be justified only enumerative induction, and (5) elimina- causes can be applied. Analogy is useful by Scripture. This was the epistemol- tive induction. She favors Newton’s Vera only for processes similar to ongoing ogy that allowed the unique creation of Causa and the method of analogy as ones. That may well eliminate aspects of science in the first place (Glover, 1984). the most reliable for geological studies the Flood and certainly eliminates Cre- The subsequent rejection of Scripture of the past. She favors analogy because ation. We must reject the secular univo- as a source of truth underlying philoso- it ties observations of modern processes cal uniformity of events and recognize phy, history, or science has led modern to ancient products. She recognizes that instead that the greatest discontinuities philosophers to postmodern relativ- the Lyellian univocal or near-univocal in earth history—Creation and the Bib- ism and despair. Only the widespread comparison of past and present can no lical Deluge—are the cause of the rock ignorance of scientists regarding these longer be defended, but her belief in a record. As Laudan notes, enumerative trends has allowed a naïve positivism more limited actualism assumes that in- induction does not work well for past to persist. Furthermore, the erroneous direct linkages are possible and helpful. events. Thus, by elimination, we are left idea that science is the proper home Vera Causa has worked quite well in the with eliminative induction. of natural history has also distorted the hard sciences, but her assumption that In this method, science is used to methods of both secular and creationist science is the method of natural history eliminate historical hypotheses based on scientists who search for the certainty boosts her confidence in its application their failure to live up to their necessary of experimental science in the inher- to the past. predictions. Not all may be disproved, ent uncertainty of the unrecorded past An argument could be made that and the correct hypothesis may never be (Reed, 2000). eliminative induction is a more realistic discovered. But that uncertainty is only However, Laudan’s (1987) analysis is method. This assumes natural history to be expected of natural history. This worth examining, if for no other reason is a mixed question that inherently pos- was recognized by Lyell’s contemporary than its rarity in treatises about natural sesses the uncertainties of history but Granville Penn (Mortenson, 2004, p. 30 Creation Research Society Quarterly

60) and, refreshingly, by some in the modeling is another step removed from nally, we see the most obvious lesson of creationist and intelligent design move- nature’s reality. On the other hand, it the age of geotheory as being a warning ments today (Tyvand, 2009). It is thus has at least shown an inductive reflex against overconfidence, recalling that all the more regrettable that so many to criticism by changing the timing and if scientists were objective that there prominent creationist researchers ha- number of runaway subduction events would be no need for science. bitually follow the evolutionists’ natural (cf. Austin et al., 1994, versus anything history recipe and then cover it with a by Baumgardner after 2002). consciously creationist “frosting,” failing There are certainly differences Conclusions to see the deeper and essential disparity between these Flood models and eigh- The proper appreciation for both the op- of worldviews in these mixed questions. teenth-century geotheory. Both restrict portunities and the limits of science was Both CPT and hydroplate have themselves to scientific explanation, severely distorted by the Enlightenment. severe weaknesses in describing and jus- avoiding philosophical or theological Science was divorced from its Christian tifying their methods. Nor are any other discussions about the origin and nature roots and accorded an unrealistic status grand Flood models of which we are of man. Both are constrained by our as the key to truth. Merging that error aware much better in this regard. This modern disciplinary boundaries, being with the Cartesian mania for system raises at least two topics that must be primarily geophysical and geological, building, eighteenth-century scientists addressed in more detail by creationists: with support from chemistry and phys- struggled to find scientific systems that (1) what is the place of grand explanatory ics. However, these differences could be would fill the vacuum left by the rejec- models in natural history, and (2) how attributed to the different definition of tion of Christianity. The result was geo- far can tentative local interpretations be the disciplines today. At any rate, they theories, the most influential being those integrated toward that end. Of course, cannot mask the remarkable similarities that dismissed biblical history—those of that assumes an inductive rather than that also exist. Buffon and Hutton. deductive approach in the first place, Geotheory was overthrown by the But geotheory could not long survive which apparently is also a topic needing limited, inductive emphasis of the early its own weight. Even as philosophical discussion. English geologists. There is no doubt skepticism began to grow, eighteenth- Hydroplate appears to rely on the that geology became organized as an century scientists, being more philosoph- method of hypothesis, which Laudan effective field science by that change in ically attuned than their modern breth- identifies (correctly) as an unreliable strategy, even though elements of geo- ren, quickly realized that the geotheories method for natural history. theory lingered. What relevance does were also unrealistic. Furthermore, they To explain scientifically an unob- that historical lesson hold for today, es- failed to deliver as promised—the end of served event that cannot be repeated, pecially for creationists whose assets are the century saw a morass of competing we must first assume the conditions limited? At the very least, it illustrates the systems, none of which could be dem- existing before that event. From need for a better historical understand- onstrated to be true or even as superior these assumed starting conditions, ing of the roots of the earth sciences and to its competitors. The growing trend of we then try to determine what should the ideas that drove them over the past deriving geohistory from limited, field- happen according to the laws of two centuries. It also highlights the dan- based, inductive studies quickly replaced Physics (Brown, 2008, p. 116). ger of a naïve positivism—the idea that geotheory as the foundation of terrestrial Thus, the hydroplate model appears with just a few “reasonable” assumptions, science, and Hutton gave way to Cuvier, to be an exercise in demonstrating as the “laws” of physics and chemistry can Smith, and the gentlemen geologists of much coherence as possible between decipher a past that is not simply closed the London Geological Society. Then its unique starting conditions and its to direct observation but also lacks the the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars conclusions. uniformity of process necessary to suc- brought about the elevation of English At first glance, CPT is more induc- cessfully extrapolate knowledge of the geology at the expense of their French tive, at least in the sense that iterative present. That in turn should caution predecessors. This is illustrated by Ly- computer modeling has been applied us against confusing natural history ell’s “victory” over Cuvier, as well as by to the problem. But it seems much the with empirical science and highlight our modern ignorance of the work of same in essence as hydroplate in the the complex interaction between them. Desmarest, Soulavie, Dolomieu, and sense that special initial conditions are That is the reason that we have both others, which preceded that of Buckland, posited and then demonstration is at- followed Adler’s (1965) classification of Murchison, Sedgwick, and Lyell. tempted based on these assumptions. It natural history as a mixed question and However, man’s innate need of grand may even be worse, since the computer continue to advocate that approach. Fi- explanatory theories guaranteed that Volume 48, Summer 2011 31

geotheory would not remain buried. It what is often presented as innocent Flood, 8th Edition. Center for Scientific reemerged in the late nineteenth and summaries of data. A good example Creation, Phoenix, AZ. early twentieth centuries in the form is the tendency to accept as much of Budd, P. 1998. Forbidden Geology. Self- of evolution, and to a lesser extent in the geological timescale as is possible published book by author. the later big bang and plate tectonics. (Snelling, 2009), despite its inherently Buffon, G.-L. Leclerc, (Comte) de. 1749. Creation science is not immune to the anti-Christian nature on levels much Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, virus of geotheorizing. Although less deeper than the amount of time on its avec la description du cabinet du Roi. 36 comprehensive than the eighteenth- geochronologic scale (Reed, 2008b). volumes. Paris, France. century theories of the earth, models In rejecting geotheory as a seri- Buffon, G.-L. Leclerc, (Comte) de. 1778. attempting to comprehensively explain ous exercise in natural history, early Des époques de la nature [and] Notes the Flood have begun to proliferate, nineteenth-century scientists understood justificatives des faits rapportés dans les each seeking to be the “silver bullet” that that their efforts were better spent on époques de la nature. In Buffon, Histoire ties all observation and theory together developing limited answers to limited naturelle, supplement 5:1–254, 495–599, into one neat explanation. The two questions based mostly on field evidence. Paris, France. most noticeable today—catastrophic Lyell was able to use Hutton’s geotheory Børresen, A.K., and A. Wale. 2008. Kartleg- plate tectonics and hydroplate—share to support his ideas only because he dis- gerne [in Norwegian]. Tapir Akademisk many similarities with the old genre of torted Hutton’s actual work (beginning Forlag and Norges Geologiske Undersø- geotheory. the legend of Hutton’s unreadable prose) kelse, Trondheim, Norway. But this trend toward grand explana- and convinced his audience that Hutton Creation in Symphony. 1996. DVD. The tory models ignores several realities. The had not been engaged in geotheory. We Creation Evidence Museum, Glen first is that science is not an autonomous cannot help but think that there is a Rose, TX. source of truth and that its only link to lesson for creationists in this historical Fischer, J.M. 1992. Dividing the earth. truth is through the justification of its sequence: that the modern geotheories CRSQ 28:166–169. assumptions and methods via Scripture. of our secular peers should not be Fischer, J.M. 1994. A giant meteorite impact Related to that is the reality that natural emulated in terms of their method, any and rapid continental drift. In Walsh, history is a mixed question, more closely more than they should in terms of their R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third associated with history than with sci- anti-Christian conclusions. International Conference on Creationism, ence. Thus, natural history does not pp. 185–197. Creation Science Fellow- and cannot hold out the same certainty ship, Pittsburgh, PA. found in the hard sciences, like chem- References Fischer, J.M. 2006. Shock dynamics. http:// istry or physics, that are constrained CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly www.newgeology.us/index.html (as of by what Adler (1965) called “special Adler, M.J. 1965. The Conditions of Phi- April, 2011). experience”—controlled observation losophy. Atheneum Press, New York, NY. Gentet, R.E. 2000. The CCC model and its and experimentation. A third reality is Adler, M.J. 1985. Ten Philosophical Mistakes. geologic implications. CRSQ 37:10–21. the enormous complexity of the planet, Touchstone, New York, NY. Glover, W. 1984. Biblical Origins of Modern which is further exacerbated among Austin, S.A., J.R. Baumgardner, D.R. Hum- Secular Culture. Mercer University Press, creationists by the paucity of full-time phreys, A.A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and Macon, GA. researchers. Perhaps eighteenth-century K.W. Wise. 1994. Catastrophic plate tec- Gould, S.J. 1987. Time’s Arrow Time’s Cycle: savants knew so little that they could tonics: a global Flood model of Earth his- Myth and Metaphor is the Discovery of be excused in overestimating their un- tory. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings Geological Time. Harvard University derstanding of Earth and its processes, of the Third International Conference on Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997. but we know enough today to better Creationism, pp. 609–621. Creation Sci- Hooykaas, R. 1963. The Principle of Unifor- estimate the extent of our ignorance. In ence Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. mity in Geology, Biology, and Theology, short, the correspondence between any Baumgardner, J.B. 2002. A constructive quest second impression. E.J. Brill, London. present Flood model and truth is likely for truth. Technical Journal 16(1):78–81. Hooykaas, R. 1970. Catastrophism in geol- limited and perhaps even fortuitous. Brown, W.T. 1980. In the Beginning: Com- ogy, its scientific character in relation Finally, the secular rebirth of geotheory pelling Evidence for Creation and the to actualism and uniformitarianism. and the masking of modern geotheory as Flood. Center for Scientific Creation, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Neder- “science” (e.g., evolution) should make Phoenix, AZ. landse Akademic van Wetenschappen any creationist cautious of the structure, Brown, W.T. 2008. In the Beginning: Com- 33:271–316. methods, and assumptions built into pelling Evidence for Creation and the Hooykaas, R. 1999. Fact, Faith and Fiction in 32 Creation Research Society Quarterly

the Development of Science: The Gifford Reed, J.K. 2000. Historiography and natural Schaeffer, F.A. 1982. The Complete Works Lectures Given in the University of St history. CRSQ 37:160–175. of Francis A. Schaeffer (five volumes). Andrews 1976. Kluwer Academic Pub., Reed, J.K. 2001. Natural History in the Crossway Books, Westchester, IL. Norwell, MA. Christian Worldview. CRS Books, Chino Schlossberg, H. 1983. Idols for Destruction. Hutton, J. 1788. Theory of the earth; or an Valley, AZ. Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN. investigation of the laws observable in the Reed, J.K. 2008a. St. Hutton’s hagiography. Snelling, A.A. 2009. Order in the fossil composition, dissolution and restoration Journal of Creation 22(2)121–127. record. Answers 5(1):64–68. of the land upon the globe. Transactions Reed, J.K. 2008b. Toppling the timescale, Stark, R. 2003. For the Glory of God. Prince of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1:209– part I: evaluating the terrain. CRSQ ton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 304, p. 288. www.mala.bc.ca/~Johnstoi/ 44:174–178. Tyler, D.J. 2006. Recolonisation and the essays/Hutton.htm, (as of May 2008). Reed, J.K. 2010. Modern geohistory: an as- Mabbul. In Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard Huxley, J. 1955. Evolution and genetics. In sault on Christianity, not an innovative (editors), The Geologic Column Perspec- Newrnan, J.R. (editor), What is Science? compromise. CRSQ 46(3):201–216. tives within Diluvial Geology, pp. 73–86. chapter 8, Simon and Schuster, New Rudwick, M.J.S. 2005. Bursting the Limits of Creation Research Society Books, Chino York, NY. Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory Valley, AZ. Laudan, Rachel. 1987. From Mineralogy to in the Age of Revolution. University of Tyvand, P. 2009. Darwin 200 År: en Festbrems Geology: The Foundations of a Science, Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. [in Norwegian]. Origo, Copenhagen, 1650–1830. University of Chicago Press, Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds Before Adam: Denmark. Chicago, IL. The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Vardiman, L. 2003. Temperature profiles Mortenson, T. 2004. The Great Turning Age of Reform. University of Chicago for an optimized water vapor canopy. In Point. Master Books, Green Forest, AR. Press, Chicago, IL. Ivey, B. (editor), Proceedings of the Fifth Oard, M.J. 1990. An Ice Age Caused by the Rush, D.E., and L. Vardiman. 1992. Radia- International Conference on Creationism, Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation tive equilibrium in an atmosphere with pp. 29–39. Creation Science Fellowship, Research, El Cajon, CA. large water vapor concentrations. CRSQ Pittsburgh, PA. 29:140–145. Volume 48, Summer 2011 33 Origin of Appalachian Geomorphology

Part I: Erosion by Retreating Floodwater and the Formation of the Continental Margin

Michael J. Oard*

Abstract he general geology and geomorphology of the Appalachians is Tsummarized. Geological features and the subdued relief of the topography indicate up to 6.5 km of erosion. Erosion can also be estimated by the amount of sedimentary rocks on the offshore continental margin sourced from the west. Assuming that this erosion came from the Appalachians east of the divide, the amount of sediment matches the estimate based on coal rank fairly well. Erosion of the Appalachians and deposition of the continental margin can readily be explained by sheet flow early in the retreating stage of the Genesis Flood, as the land rose up and the continental margin subsided. This is a pattern seen worldwide and is inexplicable by uniformitarianism. This places the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the very late Cenozoic in this region.

Introduction Ridge Mountains and the Valley and refers not only to the mountains but also The Appalachian Mountains of eastern Ridge Province. The highest mountains to several regions associated with the North America form a zone 160 to 500 are in the Smoky Mountains of western mountains (Fenneman, 1938; Thorn- km wide starting from Newfoundland, North Carolina; Mount Mitchell reach- bury, 1965), which are northwest and southeast Canada, and running 2,400 es 2,037 m asl, the highest point east of southeast of the Appalachian Mountains. km southwestward to central Alabama. the Mississippi River, and Grandfather These regions are divided into provinces The Appalachian Mountains include Mountain in the Blue Ridge tops out at of similar geomorphology —the field several provinces, including the Blue 1,810 m asl (Figure 1). “Appalachian” of geology that studies the features of Earth’s surface. This paper is restricted to the central and southern Appalachians. Although there are significant differences between the geomorphology of * Michael J. Oard, Bozeman, MT, [email protected] the central and southern Appalachians, Accepted for publication October 12, 2010 they are similar enough to include in a 34 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 1. Grandfather Mountain in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains at 1,810 m, as seen from the Blue Ridge Parkway at 1,265 m asl.

survey of the general geomorphology. tion in geology leaves several problems ing, I will refer to “secular geologists” Both areas are combined when describ- unresolved; neocatastrophism implies as actualists, whether they are either ing the geomorphology of the Appala- that the physical evidence of the past is catastrophist or gradualist. chians (Fenneman, 1938; Thornbury, much more poorly distributed than was 1965), as shown in Figure 3 below. assumed by gradualists, leading to less Before proceeding, I must clarify certainty in interpretation. Also, there General Geology some terms. Many geologists no longer has been no wholesale reconstruction of of the Appalachians prefer to be called “uniformitarian,” geology as a discipline, that is, no weed- Secular scientists consider the Appala- having converted to neocatastrophism, ing out of the many decades of uniformi- chians to have formed from repeated rejecting gradualism while maintain- tarian assumptions that influenced the continental collisions between North ing an “actualistic” method. They methods, assumptions, and conclusions America and Europe/Africa (Hatcher, prefer to be called “actualists.” However, of geology. To creationists, it appears that 1989; Plummer and McGeary, 1996, Hooykaas (1963) noted that “actualism” geologists have surrendered to the em- pp. 462–464), citing evidence of “exotic” can be equally applied to many different pirical evidence cited by catastrophists terranes, supposedly representing slices historical systems. Reed (2010) noted during the past several centuries, while obducted onto North America, and the redundant use of the two terms and clinging to their metaphysical belief exposed rare mantle rocks (Miller et al., suggested the elimination of “uniformi- system of naturalism. This, of course, 2006; Misra and Keller, 1978). Prior to tarian” from the lexicon, since “actual- is not science and cannot be justified the “last” continental collision, thick ism” has prior precedence. This revolu- scientifically. To avoid misunderstand- Paleozoic sedimentary rocks built up Volume 48, Summer 2011 35 over millions of years along the conti- below). The origin of this drainage thrusting, or at least of faulting, of the nental margins of North America and reversal remains controversial (Kaktins Blue Ridge Province against the Valley Europe. Then the continents collided and Delano, 1999). and Ridge Province is shown by fault to form “Pangea,” and the sedimentary breccia at the contact in Figure 4. rocks were buckled, folded, and faulted. There are two other geomorphic fea- It is believed that multiple thrust faults General Geomorphology tures of special interest. The first is the pushed northwest tens to hundreds of of the Appalachians Blue Ridge Escarpment of the southern kms up a low slope (Perry, 1978; Sim- Geomorphology is a geological science Appalachians, a feature about 500 km mons, 1983). Some thrusts involved that studies the general configuration of long with a face that averages 300 to 600 crystalline basement rocks, like those of Earth’s surface, especially the classifica- m high (Figure 5). It is most abrupt in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The thrust- tion, description, nature, and origin of western North Carolina, where it rises ing was related to upward intrusions of landforms and their relationship to the vertically about 600 m (Figure 6a and b). mostly granitic rocks. During collisions, underlying geological structures (e.g., Spotila et al. (2004, p. 42) stated: the Appalachians were supposedly raised see Neuendorf et al., 2005, p. 267). In northern North Carolina and as high as the modern Himalayas (Karle, Other terms for geomorphology are southern Virginia the Blue Ridge 2009, p. 76). The mechanism and source physiography and physical geography. highlands exhibit low relief, such of energy for this incredible overthrust- Landforms are features that, taken that the escarpment is a striking ing are not known, but it is assumed to together, make up the surface of the boundary between two subdued be compression. earth and include broad features such surfaces, which we refer to as the During the Mesozoic, the last su- as mountain ranges, plateaus, or plains, Upland and Piedmont surfaces. percontinent, Pangea, split apart. The and small-scale features such as hills, The Blue Ridge Escarpment is not high mountains in the eastern United valleys, slopes, canyons, or alluvial fans. as high or well defined as the Great Es- States were subsequently eroded to the The Appalachians or Appalachian carpments along eastern Brazil, eastern subdued, rounded mountains of today’s Highlands can be subdivided into Australia, western India, and around Appalachian range. Detritus from that geomorphological provinces. The Blue Southern Africa (Oard, 2008, pp. 53–54; erosion was transported both east and Ridge Province is the backbone of the Ollier, 1985), but it is still considered west, possibly as far as the Colorado Pla- Appalachian Mountains and contains a Great Escarpment (Battiau-Queney, teau (Froede, 2004; Oard, 2009a). This the highest elevations. The Valley and 1989; Pazzaglia and Gardner, 2000), is based on uranium-lead radiometric Ridge Province, just west of the Blue similar in some respects to other Great dates in zircon crystals. Sedimentary Ridge Province, is composed of folded Escarpments (Spotila et al., 2004). It rocks dated as upper Precambrian and sedimentary rocks of the Appalachian is primarily an abrupt topographic Paleozoic lie at the base of the Appala- Basin. These two provinces show up rise across high-grade metamorphic chian Basin, which is up to 12 km deep from space as one large elongated and granite rocks from the Piedmont (Way, 1999), a northeast-southwest landform (Figure 2). Farther west is the Province to the east to the Blue Ridge elongated basis just west of the Blue Appalachian Plateaus Province, which Mountains to the west (Figure 7). It is Ridge Mountains, extending from New includes the Allegheny Plateau in the not a fault and is believed to have slowly York to Alabama. north and the Cumberland Plateau in eroded westward (Spotila et al., 2004). Except for the very early Paleozoic the south. Farther west is the Interior The fault at Caesar’s Head eroded north- rocks, which exhibit eastward paleocur- Low Plateaus Province. To the east of the west in granite (Figure 8). The deduc- rents (Whitaker, 1955), Paleozoic sedi- Blue Ridge Mountains is the Piedmont tion of a northwest-eroding escarpment mentary rocks were transported toward Province. These provinces are shown is reinforced by the existence of outliers the west to northwest (Nichelsen, 1958; in Figure 3. of the Blue Ridge Province on the Pied- Pelletier, 1958; Pettijohn, 1970; Schlee, The Valley and Ridge and the east- mont. The amount of lateral erosion is 1963; Yeakel, 1962). This indicates a ern Appalachian Plateau Provinces are uncertain (Battiau-Queney, 1989) but source from the location of the current thought to represent thin overthrust slic- significant. Thornbury (1965, p. 105) Atlantic Ocean, but the sediment could es pushed northwest for long distances stated: “These [Blue Ridge] outliers have originated from the area of the along bedding planes. The Blue Ridge suggest that the front of the scarp may Piedmont or coastal plain. Then after and Piedmont are comprised of igneous have been considerably farther east in the Paleozoic, there was a flow reversal and metamorphic rocks believed to have Tertiary time.” He places the erosional toward the southeast accompanied been thrusted a short distance northwest retreat of the Blue Ridge Escarpment in by significant volumes of erosion (see (Hatcher, 1972; 1978). Evidence of the Tertiary. The location of the escarp- 36 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 2 (left). The distinctive geomorphology of the Appalachian Moun- tains, the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge Provinces, as seen from space (from Thelin and Pike, 1991).

Figure 3 (below). Map of the Appala- chian provinces and the two provinces to the west. Modified from Aadland et al. (1992). Volume 48, Summer 2011 37

Figure 5. Location of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. From Spotilla et al. (2004, p. 42).

Figure 4. Fault breccia of Antietam quartzite in Blue Ridge Thrust Fault zone, Rt 340, Virginia. Note angularity and freshness of clasts. From Bentley (2010).

Figure 6a. Blue Ridge Escarpment, a 600-m cliff, at Cae- Figure 6b. View northwest of the Blue Ridge Escarpment sar’s Head State Park, South Carolina (view southeast). from the rolling Piedmont erosion surface, North Carolina. 38 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 7. Cross-section with vertical exaggeration 5.9 across the Blue Ridge Escarpment with a 24° slope on a northwest— southeast line. From Spotilla et al. (2004, p. 43).

Province. It extends the full length of the Appalachians, from the St. Lawrence Lowland to Alabama, varying in width from 3.5–80 km. The Great Valley can be considered the first valley of the Val- ley and Ridge Province, but it is much wider than those to the west. It is 3.5 km wide just north of Roanoke, Virginia, but 80 km wide at its southern end. It goes by many local names, such as Coosa, Shenandoah, Cumberland, Lebanon, Hudson, and Champlain Valleys. The sedimentary rocks below the Great Val- ley are deformed and folded like the rest of the Valley and Ridge Province yet have been planed into a long, narrow erosion surface (Perry, 1978). Along its length, there are low passes creating segments. Many cities and towns have been built within the Great Valley, and Interstate 81 runs almost its entire length.

Appalachians Deeply Eroded For many decades, geologists have believed that the Appalachian Mountains are “old” because they have been deeply Figure 8. Google Earth/Google Map image of Caesars Head State Park area, eroded. They present a rounded appear- showing base of Great Escarpment (black line) cutting across Middle Paleozoic ance (Figures 10a and 10b) in many ar- granite as shown in Schruben et al. (2006). North is to top right of picture; 3x eas. Early estimates of Cenozoic erosion vertical exaggeration. were 2 km from eastern North America (Mathews, 1975), with much less during the Mesozoic. Clearly, significant erosion has occurred, as witnessed by the ment cannot be correlated to lithology Escarpments, but the cause is unknown erosional remnants, near-surface coal, (i.e., soft or hard rocks); the lack of pref- (Spotila et al., 2004). and eroded anticlines. Surrounding prov- erential erosion (Spotila et al., 2004) is A second major geomorphic fea- inces have also been eroded significantly a conundrum to most geologists. So, the ture is the Great Valley (Figure 9), a into erosion and planation surfaces. Blue Ridge Escarpment is believed to prominent valley (see Figure 2) on the Some plutonic rock masses in the have formed erosionally, like other Great eastern edge of the Valley and Ridge Appalachians (Figure 11) indicate a few Volume 48, Summer 2011 39

Figure 9. View northwest of the Great Valley from Rocky Top Overlook, Shenandoah National Park.

Figure 10a. The Blue Ridge Mountains, showing an eroded, Figure 10b. The Great Smoky Mountains of the southern rounded appearance (view southeast from exit 55 on Inter- Blue Ridge Mountains, showing an eroded, rounded appear- state 64 Virginia. ance (view southeast from Sevierville, Tennessee).

thousand feet of erosion as a minimum, Ridge Province west of the Blue Ridge km of overlying sedimentary rock was namely of the rocks surrounding the Mountains (Figure 12). It includes high- eroded at one time. The exact volume pluton. Plutonic rocks were once under rank anthracite and medium-rank bitu- of rock varies with assumptions, which the ground and only have been exposed minous coal; the rank is typically higher are speculative. Friedman and Sanders by erosion. toward the southeast (Hower and Rim- (1982) believed that the anthracite coal Coal is commonly found in the mer, 1991). If rank was a result of heat in the Catskill Mountains of New York sedimentary rocks in the Valley and and pressure just from burial, several required an overburden of rock about 40 Creation Research Society Quarterly

6.4 km thick, implying this much erosion occurred since the coal is near the surface. This depth was estimated based on a normal geothermal gradient and no local heat sources. However, a higher gradient in the past or some other thermal source would have required less sedimentary overburden (Hower and Rimmer, 1991). Although Friedman and Sanders (1982) studied anthracite coal in the Catskill Mountains, their deductions based on the existence of anthracite coal would also apply to the coal of Valley and Ridge Province, since their depth estimate is simply based on estimated overburden and the geothermal gradi- Figure 11. Exposed granite seen from Log Hallow Overlook on the Blue Ridge ent. The lower-rank bituminous coal Parkway. would require less heat and pressure. So if there were no other heat sources and the geothermal gradient were normal, the removal of between 4 and 6.5 km of sedimentary rock from the Valley and Ridge Province is a reasonable estimate based on coal rank. In regard to the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces, erosion could have been tens of km, but this assumes the grade of metamorphic rocks, now on the surface, formed at depths of tens of kms and pushed up to the surface with the rock above eroded off. There could be other ways to form metamorphic rocks besides depth, so the deduction of tens of kms of erosion is uncertain. Regardless, a huge volume of rock was eroded off these provinces during uplift.

Amount of Erosion Based on Offshore Sediments Another, more accurate, method of estimating the amount of erosion is to determine the volume of sediment, pre- sumably derived from the Appalachians, deposited in the offshore continental margin system and its associated basins. The continental margin includes the continental shelf, slope, and rise. These sediments form a wedge, thickening Figure 12. Area of the Appalachian coal of Pennsylvanian age within the unifor- seaward, and beginning near zero at mitarian geological column. From Eble and Grady (1993, p. 122). the “fall line,” a small topographical Volume 48, Summer 2011 41

ied rifts or basins caused by extension and subsidence east of the Blue Ridge Mountains (Hack, 1989; Schlische, 1993; Pazzaglia and Gardner, 1994, p. 12,153). These basins parallel the coast and the Blue Ridge Mountains (Figure 15), indicating that they are related to differential uplift between the land and the sea (see below). One of the deepest of these basins is the Baltimore Canyon Trough. It extends some 400 km from Cape Hatteras to Long Island (Pickering et al., 1989, pp. 263–269) with a maximum fill thickness of 18 km (Pazzaglia and Gardner, 2000, p. 287) and a total area of 200,000 km2. Figure 13. Exposed rapids at the fall line after a dam was built, Savannah River, A similar deep basin off Newfoundland— Augusta, Georgia. the Jeanne d’Arc Basin—contains up to 20 km of sedimentary rock (Deptuck et al., 2003). This vast amount of sediment was likely sourced from the Appalachians. The cause of erosion and sedimentation was the concomitant uplift of eastern North America and sinking of the At- lantic basin. Poag and Sevon (1989, p. 119) stated that “the primary forcing mechanisms considered have been tectonic and isostatic uplift and subsidence.” Tectonic uplift of the eastern United States is believed to have caused the erosion, while the total amount of subsidence along the continental margin is believed to be 14 km (Poag, 1992; Poag and Sevon, 1989). In other words, Figure 14. Seaward prograding wedge of sedimentary rocks after Fenneman (1938, the continent rose up and the adjacent p. 7). A to D represents the original surface, A to B is the coastal plain, and B to ocean sank down. C is the ocean on top of the continental shelf. Given the extensive data available along the margin of eastern North America, Poag and Sevon (1989) calculated the total volume of sedimentary rock for each period from the Jurassic drop between the Piedmont and Coastal rise (Figure 14) (Klitgord et al., 1988; to the Quaternary. The amount of Plain provinces. As the limit of upstream Poag and Valentine, 1988). sedimentary rocks per period depends navigation, many large cities in the Though typically only about 1000 upon assumptions of dating (primarily southeast are built on the fall line. Its m, the thickness of continental margin by index fossils), so I will simply exam- topography varies. Major rivers crossing sedimentary rocks is quite impressive ine the total volume of sediments and the fall line form either waterfalls or a in basins. Extensive deep-sea boreholes sedimentary rocks. The total volume of series of rapids (Figure 13). The coastal and seismic reflection profiles have non-carbonate and non-“evaporite” sedi- plain sedimentary wedge thickens out shown great thicknesses of sedimentary mentary rocks is 1.377 million km3 over across the continental shelf, slope, and rocks offshore, and there are many bur- an area of about 500,000 km2 between 42 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Because of the potential energy generated by the uplifting Appalachians and the adjacent sinking ocean basins, it is likely that erosion was much stronger east of the divide than west of the divide. The eroded debris west of the divide should have been much less than east of the divide and transported into the Gulf of Mexico. From the standpoint of geomorphology, it is clear that the Appalachians have been heavily eroded, probably by as much as 6 km or more. What caused the erosion, transport, and redeposition of these rocks? Many clues point to the deduction that erosion had to be catastrophic and not by slow erosion over millions of years as provided by the details of the geomorphology of the Appalachians, described more fully in Parts II and III. Since planation and erosion surfaces, erosional remnants (monadnocks), long transported rocks, and water and wind gaps are inimical to the model of slow erosion over millions of years, a catastrophic mechanism is favored (Oard, 2008). Evidence of rapid erosion exists in the hundreds of erosional remnants, especially the monadnocks on the Piedmont (see Part II). Figure 15. Exposed and inferred rift basins, east of the Blue Ridge Mountains If the erosion were slow and gradual over and offshore along the continental margin. After Heck (1989). millions of years, these monadnocks also would have eroded and would be very small today. Another clue to the erosional history comes from the late timing of the ero- latitudes 36° and 42° N and longitudes sediments were mostly eroded from east sion—after a huge amount of sediments 39° 30΄ and 78° W. The average depth of the Appalachian divide, reducing the had been laid down. Most geologists date of this sediment over that area is 2.7 km, area by nearly 30%, and increasing the the erosion during the late Mesozoic and and if carbonates and evaporites are thickness of overburden removed to ap- Cenozoic. Such powerful catastrophic included, it may exceed 3 km. proximately 6 km. That is close to Paz- erosion and deposition of the Coastal The central Appalachians, includ- zaglia and Gardner’s (2000) estimate of Plain and offshore sediments late in ing the Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, about 7 km and to that derived from coal geological history strongly points that and Piedmont Provinces, cover an area studies on the Valley and Ridge Province the erosion occurred during the latter of around 315,000 km2 (Poag, 1992). (4 to 6.5 km) but less than that assumed stage of the Genesis Flood. Based on the total volume and assuming to have eroded from the Blue Ridge and that the sediment originated from these Piedmont Provinces. provinces, the average thickness of rock It is not possible to calculate the Erosion by the Flood removed by erosion would have been volume of erosion over the Appalachian Clearly, the erosion and deposition was 4.37 km, ignoring issues of compaction, Plateaus and interior Low Plateaus caused by the combined uplift of the etc. However, it is probable that these Provinces west of the continental divide. Appalachians and subsidence of the Volume 48, Summer 2011 43

the Appalachians uplifted late in the flooding stage and early in the retreating stage with the future Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces overthrust toward the northwest and buckling the Appala- chian Basin sedimentary rocks (Figure 17b). Such uplift with the adjacent sinking ocean basin to the east causes the sheet flow to reverse east of the major uplift. Sheet flow continues in Figure 17c, eroding the whole area. The strongest currents would be expected east of the divide because of the rising Appalachians and greatly sinking continental margin to the southeast rapidly increasing the potential energy for gravitational acceleration. The greater the differential change in elevation, the faster the water runoff. Water diverted toward the west, on the other side of the Figure 16. Walker’s classification of the Flood into the 150-day flooding stage and Appalachians, would have been acceler- 221-day retreating stage with five phases. ated to moderate speeds by the sinking of the Gulf of Mexico, which is far away.

The Formation of the Continental Margin continental margin. This fits both Bibli- by currents parallel to the Appalachians, The eroded debris would have been cal and scientific data from other parts of many pediments would have been deposited as soon as the current energy the world. Uplift and deposition in the formed (Oard, 2004; 2008). Based on dropped, which would have been at rifts along the coastal plain and offshore work done in the western U.S. (Oard, the transition to deeper water at the began before Day 150 based on dinosaur 2008; Ranney, 2005), it appears that subsiding continental margin and its tracks in these sediments (Froede, 2010), there was an initial episode of sheet-flow associated basins. Thus, the coastal since tracks imply a live vertebrate that erosion along the entire length of the plain and continental margin sediments had to be dead by Day 150. The majority Appalachians. That current would have were deposited in the same event that of the thick offshore sediment probably transported the detritus to the coastal eroded the Appalachians. The scale of occurred during the retreating stage of plain and offshore regions, depositing the event is supported by the nature of the Flood (Oard, 2008; Walker, 1994) the sediment as a sheet where the wa- the sedimentary strata. Pitman (1978, p. as the Appalachians continued to uplift. ter depth increased and as the current 1,393) stated: Psalm 104:6–9 describes the latter part of velocity decreased. The general structure of Atlantic- the Flood, speaking of the simultaneous Ongoing uplift and falling water lev- type margins is that of a seaward- rising of the mountains and sinking of els during this sheet flow episode would thickening mass of systematically valleys. Figure 16 shows the two stages eventually divert the flow around the stratified sediment overlying a deeply and five phases of the Flood. Blue Ridge Mountains. Figure 17 shows subsided, faulted basement platform Because the Blue Ridge Escarp- a series of schematics showing the uplift … The sedimentary strata consist of ment likely represents a northwestward and erosion of the Appalachians during seaward-thickening wedges sepa- retreating erosional escarpment, like a the sheet-flow phase of the retreating rated, at least in the shallower sec- 500-km long retreating waterfall, erosion stage of the Flood. Very thick sedi- tions, by remarkably undisturbed of the Appalachians likely was caused ments were laid down early in the huge planar horizons. The deepest strata by currents flowing generally from the northeast-southwest Appalachian Basin are often disturbed by basement northwest, perpendicular to the moun- early in the Flood from currents mostly horsts and grabens, reefal structures, tain chain. Moreover, if erosion were coming from the east (Figure 17a). Then and diapirs. 44 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 17. Schematic of suggested tectonic and erosional features for the Appalachians. Illustration by Melanie Richard.

A. Very thick sediments collect in the Appalachian basin early in the Flood from currents coming mostly from the east.

B. Appalachians uplift early in the retreating stage with the future Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces over- Figure 17a thrust toward the northwest and buckling the Appalachian Basin sedimentary rocks.

C. Sheet flow continues and erodes the whole area.

Figure 17b

A horst is an uplifted block, and a graben is a downfaulted block. Reefal structures are rare. Diapirs are intrusions of salt, mud, or sand that are squeezed upward from beds below by density differences. Such diapirs are an indication of rapid deposition in that the soft material did not have a chance to dewater before the next layer was deposited. Like the Gulf of Mexico basin, the Atlantic margin diapirs are believed to be mostly salt from the deepest layers of the continental margin. During subsidence, many rift basins opened due to extension and block faulting (see above). Figure 15 shows Figure 17c these basins elongated parallel to the coast and the trend of the Appalachians. Volume 48, Summer 2011 45

These basins have been cited as evidence of the breakup of Pangea in the plate tectonics paradigm, but simple extension as the Appalachians uplifted while the continental margin greatly subsided can account for them. These basins were quickly filled with sediments. The broad sheets of sediment that form the continental margin are typically flat with a slight seaward dip, decreasing from the basement upward through the sediment wedge. But sometimes, the dip increases seaward, forming unconformities and delta-like features that indicate that the current flow was perpendicular to the shoreline and not parallel as expected by wind generated currents. Hedberg (1970, p. 11) stated Figure 18. Schematic comparing the scale and character of uniformitarian sedi- that the “reflection profiling has shown mentation in local floods (top) contrasted with the Genesis Flood (bottom). The that many slopes in their present form left side is an aerial view, while the right side is a vertical cross-section. Note the are the result of prograding sedimenta- much larger aerial and vertical scale of flood deposition with little or no erosion tion.” This prograding wedge of sedi- at the contacts between types of sedimentary rock. From Oard (2008, p. 26). mentation is perpendicular to the coast. The dip of the sedimentary rocks of the coastal margin is steeper where they are buried deeper (Steckler et al., The formations and unconformities found on high mountains; the difference 1999), reinforcing the role of differential have been tilted seaward (mono- in elevation was once much less during vertical tectonics. King (1982, p. 45) clinally) at intervals during the the Flood (Oard, 2009b). The same fea- commented in regard to the continental later Cenozoic. There have been tures are seen in ocean basins, as shown margin sedimentary rocks off southeast repeated tectonic episodes: always by fracture zones and the ubiquitous Africa: in the same sense—the lands go up abyssal hills (Oard, 2008). We note that all the formations and the sea floor down. The timing of the erosional and drilled dip offshore. The oldest and King indirectly quoted Psalm 104:8! depositional event that formed the cur- deepest formations dip at several de- He believed that stepwise tectonic rent Appalachian geomorphology and grees, the youngest and upper most movements caused the unconformities, the sedimentary wedge of the conti- dip at less than one degree. but others believe such unconformities nental margin clearly was relatively late. Such a profile of the subsurface sedi- could be caused by other processes, Geologists date these events mostly in mentary rocks of the continental margin such as the change in the amount of the Cenozoic. Thus, in this region, the indicates a broad scale uplift of the ad- sedimentation (Steckler et al., 1999). end of the Flood coincides with the late jacent continental area and sinking of King also believed that the vertical tec- Cenozoic, similar to many other features the continental margin, probably along tonics occurred quite late in geological found around the planet (Oard, 2007). with the ocean basins farther seaward time, which would correspond to the (Uchupi and Emory, 1967; Pazzaglia late Flood differential vertical tectonics. Implications for Actualism and Gardner, 1994). This is consistent This pattern, seen in the Appalachians, The large-scale, uniform sedimentation with the subsidence of guyots far from is also observed worldwide. Differential finds no place within classical gradual- land that were probably planed off close vertical tectonics explains features at a ism and is hard-pressed to be explained to sea level but whose tops are now at an variety of scales, from interior mountain by neocatastrophist concepts. Unifor- average of 1,500 m below sea level (King, basins (Oard, 2008) to the megaregional mitarian erosion and sedimentation is 1983). The hinge line for this uplift and continental margins. This also answers generally linear and small scale (Figure subsidence is near the coast. King (1983, the common canard about the relation- 18). But the continental shelf and slope p. 200, emphasis added) summarized: ship between the Flood and marine strata sediments are mostly planar. 46 Creation Research Society Quarterly

jacent subsiding continental margin, creating a unique continental shelf and slope system that cannot be explained by the long-term work of present-day processes, even granting higher rates of energy. Instead, these features support the work of the early retreating stage of the Genesis Flood. The Flood/ post-Flood boundary in this region is clearly in the very late Cenozoic since the uplift, huge erosion, and the thick Figure 19. Principle features of a wide Atlantic-type margin with a continental sedimentation of the continental mar- rise (vertical exaggeration 50x). The dashed line represents the expected profile of gin predominantly occurred during the continental margin if formed over millions of years according to King (1983). the Cenozoic of the uniformitarian Modified from Kennett (1982, p. 27) timescale.

Acknowledgments: I thank those people who helped with this project, especially The surface profile of the continen- with the Gulf Stream (Kennett, 1982). John Reed, who suggested that I check tal margin is also contrary to expecta- Sediments today are mainly supplied to the amount of sedimentary rocks off- tions of gradualists. Natural processes the continental margin by rivers. These shore of the Appalachians, and Doug operating at lower energy levels over rivers create deltas, with shore-parallel Dunbar, who showed me the geomor- longer periods would generate a steady currents spreading the sediment along phology of western Kentucky. I also slope from continent to abyssal plains; the continental margin. Slumping and thank two anonymous reviewers for there should be no continental shelf or other mass movements cause the sedi- significantly improving the manuscript slope. Figure 19 shows the current pro- ment to slide down to the deep ocean and for providing two of the figures. I ap- file of the continental margin with the basins. If these processes operating over preciate the work of artist Mrs. Melanie dashed line showing the slope predicted millions of years had formed the conti- Richard, who drew the schematic shown by gradual processes. King (1983, p. 199, nental margin, we would expect quite in Figure 17. This work was supported emphasis added) described this puzzle: different features from those actually by a grant from the Creation Research There arises, however, the question observed. Society. as to what marine agency was responsible for the leveling of the shelf in early Cenozoic time, a leveling that Summary References was preserved, with minor modifi- The Appalachian Mountains include CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly cation, until the offshore canyon (from east to west) the Piedmont, Blue JoC: Journal of Creation, Technical Journal, cutting of Quaternary time? Briefly Ridge Mountains, Valley and Ridge, or Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal the shelf is too wide, and towards and Appalachian Plateaus provinces. Aadland, R.K., A.D. Smits, and P.A. Thayer. the outer edge too deep, to have Geological features, such as near- 1992. Geology and hydrostratigraphy been controlled by normal wind- surface high-rank coal, geomorphologic of the A/M Area, Savannah River Site generated waves of the ocean surface. features, and the volume of derivative (SRS), South Carolina, USDOE Re- At the time King wrote these words, sediment generally agree in suggesting port WSRC-RP-92–440, Westinghouse many scientists believed that submarine comprehensive erosion averaging 4–6.5 Savannah River Company, Savannah canyons were young features formed by km in depth from the entire region. The River Site, Aiken, SC. the lower sea level of the “Quaternary” best explanation of the geomorphology Battiau-Queney, Y. 1989. Constraints from Ice Age. However, researchers now real- of the mountains and adjacent con- deep crustal structure on long-term land- ize that submarine canyons must have tinental margin is erosion along the form development of the British Isles and taken much more time to erode in their entire length of the mountains by sheet Eastern United States. Geomorphology paradigm (Oard, 2008). flow perpendicular to the Appalachian 2:53–70. Ocean currents are commonly paral- axis. Eroded detritus was transported, Bentley, C. 2010. http://mountainbeltway. lel to the coast, and such is the case here, sorted, and deposited along the ad- wordpress.com/2010/05/17/geology- Volume 48, Summer 2011 47

of-skyline-drive-jmu/ (accessed June of the U.S. Appalachians. In Hatcher, America. American Journal of Science 2, 2010). R.D. Jr., W.A. Thomas, and G.W. Viele 275:818–824. Deptuck, M.E., R.A. MacRae, J.W. Shimeld, (editors), The Geology of North America, Miller, B.V., A.H. Fetter, and K.G. Stew- G.L. Williams, and R.A. Fensome. 2003. Volume F-2, The Appalachian-Ouachita art. 2006. Plutonism in three orogenic Revised Upper Cretaceous and lower Orogen in the United States, pp. 511–535. pulses, Eastern Blue Ridge Province, Paleogene lithostratigraphy and deposi- Geological Society of America, Boulder, southern Appalachians. GSA Bulletin tional history of the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, CO. 118:171–184. offshore Newfoundland, Canada. AAPG Heck, F.R. 1989. Mesozoic extension in Misra, K.C., and F.B. Keller. 1978. Ultramaf- Bulletin 87:1,459–1,483. the southern Appalachians. Geology ic bodies in the southern Appalachians: Eble, C.F., and W.C. Grady. 1993. Palyno- 17:711–714. a review. American Journal of Science logic and petrographic characteristics Hedberg, H.D. 1970. Continental margins 278:389–418. of two Middle Pennsylvanian coal beds from viewpoint of the petroleum geolo- Neuendorf, K.K.E., J.P. Mehl, Jr., and J.A. and a probable modern analogue. In gist. AAPG Bulletin 54 (1):3–43. Jackson. 2005. Glossary of Geology, Cobb, J.C., and C.B. Cecil (editors), Hooykaas, R. 1963. The Principle of Unifor- 5th ed. American Geological Institute, Modern and Ancient Coal-Forming En- mity in Geology, Biology, and Alexandria, VA. vironments, GSA Special paper 286, pp. Theology, second impression. E.J. Brill, Nickelsen, R.P. 1958. Cross-bedding in 119–138. Geological Society of America, London, UK. Pennsylvanian sandstones of central Boulder, CO. Hower, J.C., and S.M. Rimmer. 1991. Coal Pennsylvania: a preliminary study. GSA Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of rank trends in the central Appalachian Bulletin 69:791–796. Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill coalfields: Virginia, West Virginia, Oard, M.J. 2004. Pediments formed by the Book Company, Inc, New York, NY. and Kentucky. Organic Geochemistry Flood: evidence for the Flood/post-Flood Friedman, G.M., and J.E. Sanders. 1982. 17(2):161–173. boundary in the Late Cenozoic. JoC Time-temperature-burial significance Kaktins, U., and H.L. Delano. 1999. Drain- 18(2):15–27. of Devonian anthracite implies former age basins. In Shultz, C.H. (editor), The Oard, M.J. 2007. Defining the Flood/post- great (~6.5 km) depth of burial of Geology of Pennsylvania, pp. 379–390. Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks. Catskill Mountains, New York. Geology Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Har- JofC 21(1): 98–110. 10:93–96. risburg, PA, and Pittsburgh Geological Oard, M.J. 2008. Flood by Design: Receding Froede, C.R. Jr. 2004. Eroded Appalachian Society, Pittsburgh, PA. Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface. Master Mountain siliciclastics as a source for the Karle, K.H. 2009. Young evidences in an Books, Green Forest, AR. Navajo Sandstone. JoC 18(2):3–5. ancient landscape: part 1—the Eastern Oard, M.J. 2009a. Colorado Plateau sand- Froede, C.R. Jr. 2010. Fossilized animal Structural Front of the Appalachian stones derived from the Appalachians? tracks and trackways date uplift of the Mountains. JoC 23(3):76–83. JoC 23(3):5–7. Appalachian Mountains. Creation Mat- Kennett, J. 1982. Marine Geology. Prentice- Oard, M.J. 2009b. Dinosaur tracks, eggs, ters 15(4):1, 6, 7. Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. and bonebeds. In Oard, M.J., and J.K. Hack, J.T. 1989. Geomorphology of the King, L.C. 1982. The Natal Monocline, sec- Reed (editors), Rock Solid Answers: The Appalachian Highlands. In Hatcher, ond revised edition. University of Natal Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological R.D. Jr., W.A. Thomas, and G.W. Viele Press, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Questions, pp. 245–258. Master Books, (editors), The Geology of North America, King, L.C. 1983. Wandering Continents and Green Forest, AR, and Creation Re- Volume F-2, The Appalachian-Ouachita Spreading Sea Floors on an Expanding search Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ. Orogen in the United States, pp. 459–470. Earth. John Wiley & Sons, New York, Ollier, C.D. 1985. Morphotectonics of Geological Society of America, Boulder, NY. passive continental margins: introduc- CO. Klitgord, K.D., D.R. Hutchinson, and H. tion. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N. Hatcher, R.D. Jr. 1972. Development model Schouten. 1988. U.S. Atlantic continen- F. 54:1–9. for the Southern Appalachians. GSA tal margin; structural and tectonic frame- Pazzaglia, F.J., and T.W. Gardner. 1994. Bulletin 83:2,735–2,760. work. In Sheridan, R.E., and J.A. Grow Late Cenozoic flexural deformation of Hatcher, R.D. Jr. 1978. Tectonics of the (editors), The Geology of North America, the middle U. S. Atlantic passive mar- western Piedmont and Blue Ridge, Volume I-2: The Atlantic Continental gin. Journal of Geophysical Research 99 Southern Appalachians: review and Margin: U.S., pp. 19–55. Geological (B6):12,143–12,157. speculation. American Journal of Science Society of America, Boulder, CO. Pazzaglia, F.J., and T.W. Gardner. 2000. 278:276–304. Mathews, W.H. 1975. Cenozoic erosion Late Cenozoic landscape evolution of Hatcher, R.D. Jr. 1989. Tectonic synthesis and erosion surfaces of eastern North the US Atlantic passive margin: insights 48 Creation Research Society Quarterly

into a North American Great Escarp- continental margin. Geomorphology Steckler, M.S., G.S. Mountain, K.G. Miller, ment. In Summerfield, M. A. (editor), 2:119–157. and N. Christie-Blick. 1999. Reconstruc- Geomorphology and Global Tectonics, Poag, C.W., and P.C. Valentine. 1988. Me- tion of Tertiary progradation and clino- pp. 283–302. John Wiley & Sons, New sozoic and Cenozoic stratigraphy of the form development on the New Jersey York, NY. United States Atlantic continental shelf passive margin by 2-D backstripping. Pelletier, B.R. 1958. Pocono paleocurrents and slope. In Sheridan, R.E., and J.A. Marine Geology 154:399–420. in Pennsylvania and Maryland. GSA Grow (editors), The Geology of North Thelin, G.P., and R.J. Pike. 1991. Landforms Bulletin 69:1,033–1,064. America, Volume I-2: The Atlantic Con- of the Conterminous United States: A Perry, W.J. Jr. 1978. Sequential deformation tinental Margin: U.S., pp. 67–85. Geo- Digital Shaded-Relief Portrayal. Miscel- in the central Appalachians. American logical Society of America, Boulder, CO. laneous Investigations Series Map I-2206, Journal of Science 278:518–542. Ranney, W. 2005. Carving Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, Pettijohn, F.J. 1970. Introduction. In, Fisher, Evidence, Theories, and Mystery. Grand DC. G.W., F.J. Pettijohn, J.C. Reed Jr., and Canyon Association, Grand Canyon, AZ. Thornbury, W.D. 1965. Regional Geomor- K.N. Weaver (editors), Studies of Appala- Reed, J.K. 2010. Untangling uniformitarian- phology of the United States. John Wiley chian Geology: Central and Southern, pp. ism, level I: a quest for clarity. Answers & Sons, New York, NY. 1–4. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Research Journal 3:37–59. Uchupi, E. and K.O. Emery. 1967. Struc- Pickering, K.T., R.N. Hiscott, and F.J. Hein. Schlee, J. 1963. Early Pennsylvanian currents ture of continental margin off Atlantic 1989. Deep-Marine Environments. Un- in the southern Appalachian Mountains. coast of United States. AAPG Bulletin win Hyman, London, U.K. GSA Bulletin 74:1,439–1,452. 51(2):223–234. Pitman W.C. III. 1978. Relationship between Schlische, R.W. 1993. Anatomy and evolu- Walker, T. 1994. A Biblical geological model. eustacy and stratigraphic sequences of tion of the Triassic-Jurassic continental In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of passive margins. GSA Bulletin 89:1,389– rift system, Eastern North America. the Third International Conference on 1,403. Tectonics 12 (4):1,026–1,042. Creationism, technical symposium ses- Plummer, C.C. and D. McGeary. 1996. Schruben, P.G., R.E. Arndt, and W.J. Bawiec, sions, pp. 581–592. Creation Science Physical Geology, 7th edition. Wm C. 2006. Geology of the Conterminous Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA. United States at 1:2,500,000 Scale — A Way, J.H. 1999. Appalachian Mountain sec- Poag, C.W. 1992. U.S. middle Atlantic Digital Representation of the 1974 P.B. tion of the Ridge and Valley Province. continental rise: provenance, dispersal, King and H.M. Beikman Map. http:// In Shultz, C.H. (editor), The Geology and deposition of Jurassic to Quaternary pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds11/ (accessed June of Pennsylvania, pp. 353–361. Pennsyl- sediments. In Poag, C.W., and P.C. de 2, 1010). vania Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Graciansky (editors), Geological Evolu- Simmons, H. 1983. Old rock on young rock. PA, and Pittsburgh Geological Society, tion of Atlantic Continental Rises, pp. Mosaic 16(2):24–31. Pittsburgh, PA. 100–156. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New Spotila, J.A., G.C. Bank, R.W. Reiners, Whitaker, J.C. 1955. Direction of current York, NY. C.W. Naeser, N.D. Naeser, and B.S. flow in some lower Cambrian clastics Poag, C.W., and W.D. Sevon. 1989. A record Henika. 2004. Origin of the Blue Ridge in Maryland. GSA Bulletin 66:763–766. of Appalachian denudation in postrift escarpment along the passive margin of Yeakel, L.S. Jr. 1962. Tuscarora, Juniata, and Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimen- Eastern North America. Basin Research Bald Eagle paleocurrents and paleogeog- tary deposits of the U.S. middle Atlantic 16:41–63. raphy in the central Appalachians. GSA Bulletin 73:1,515–1,540. Volume 48, Summer 2011 49 The Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic Region

Part II: Magnitude, Extent, and Importance of the Little Ice Age

Peter Klevberg, Michael J. Oard*

Abstract ontroversy has surrounded the term “Little Ice Age” since its in- Cception in 1939. While some degree of cooling is acknowledged in the Northern Hemisphere in recent centuries, the magnitude, extent, and timing of the Little Ice Age remain controversial. A tendency to downplay both the Little Ice Age and the preceding Medieval Warm Period has accompanied the recent emphasis on climate change in general and global warming in particular. Secular scientists and diluvialists hold different assumptions about natural history, and employ different methodologies in paleoclimatology, resulting in different opinions about future climate change. While inferred past ice ages are entirely speculative, the Little Ice Age is constrained by historical data, providing a unique opportunity to evaluate natural history speculation. Although instrumental records are too brief to allow anything more than calibration of transfer functions for climatic proxy data, these proxy data are particularly good for the North Atlantic region, which also can provide useful geographic conditions for testing predictions of the rapid, postdiluvial ice age model. The first paper in this series provided background for the methods used to study climates of the past. This paper summarizes evidence for past climate change and provides a description of the study area.

Was the Little Ice Age is an important one, especially in regard Global Evidences Regional? to the applicability of the data obtained The best historical data for the Little Ice Could the Little Ice Age have been just from the Little Ice Age to testing natural Age are from the North Atlantic region; a European phenomenon? The question history scenarios on a broader scale. although historical accounts are available from China and Japan, proxy data must be relied upon for most of the rest of the world (Grove, 1988). These data * Peter Klevberg, B.S., P.E., Great Falls, Montana, [email protected] do provide a strong case for a period of Michael J. Oard, M.S., Bozeman, Montana widespread glacial advance across the Accepted for publication May 16, 2011 earth—a little ice age. In particular, one 50 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 1. World glacial fluctuations. Frontal positions of representative glaciers from various temperate regions of the world. The reference datum (horizontal line at 1.0) chosen to standardize these data is the frontal position of each in 1890. Data from Grove (1988) and Kjøllmoen (2007).

form of proxy data—measurements of of climate change that support the contrast, with more of the storms heading the glaciers themselves—is particularly clusion that climate fluctuations driving south to the Mediterranean. Changes useful (Oerlemans, 2005). Some impor- the Little Ice Age reached far beyond in the N.A.O. produce a “seesaw” effect tant records are presented in the form the North Atlantic region (Grove, 2001; between Greenland and Europe; for of Figure 1. Hendy et al., 2002; Pienitz et al., 2000). example, a mild winter in Greenland “Glaciers on every continent have is likely to coincide with a hard winter expanded in the last few centuries; the Regional Influences in Europe. Clearly the N.A.O. cannot Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon” The most prominent regional influence explain the Little Ice Age itself, since (Grove, 1988, p. 354). Jean Grove’s invoked to attempt to explain the Little temperatures fell and glaciers advanced salient work on the Little Ice Age pre Ice Age is the North Atlantic Oscillation on both sides of the North Atlantic, so sents data from far beyond the North (Fagan, 2000; Mann, 2002). A “positive variations in the N.A.O. explain only the Atlantic region: Switzerland, Russia, the index” for the North Atlantic Oscillation decadal-scale variations within the Little Himalayas, East Africa, Indonesia, New (N.A.O.) resembles the situation shown Ice Age (Barlow, 2001). The global cool- Zealand, South America, and North in Figure 2, while a “negative” N.A.O. ing signal was therefore stronger than the America. These show a roughly contem- index has high pressure over Iceland and regional (Grove, 1988). porary fluctuation of glaciers in these dis- low pressure near the Azores. A “positive tant places (Oerlemans, 2005)—perhaps index” is associated with strong westerly even more strictly contemporary if we flow from the North Atlantic Ocean to When Was the Little Ice Age? account for some of the uniformitarian Europe, with milder conditions, while The term “Little Ice Age” was origi- biases that may affect proxies. Even areas a “negative index” produces reduced nally coined by F. Matthes for what is without glaciers have produced records flow and greater winter-summer con- generally called today the “neoglacial” Volume 48, Summer 2011 51

Fell (1999) describes a “worsening” of the climate after 1200 but “much worse” in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Onset of the Little Ice Age occurred at a similar time in Norway and Greenland (Grove, 1988). The Little Ice Age peaked in Iceland, Nor- way, and Greenland about 1750 to 1850 (Grove, 1988; McKinzey et al., 2005). In Norway, the Little Ice Age ended about 1880 according to Nordli (2001), which coincides with the maximum extent of major outlet glaciers in Iceland (Ives, 2007). For Western Europe, the reconstruction of Guiot et al. (2005) provides a marked cold period from AD 1560 to 1930. Oerlemans (2005), in an investigation of glaciers worldwide, placed the peak of the Little Ice Age at about 1800. “The timing attributed to [the Little Ice Age] has varied considerably from author to author, perhaps reflecting real regional differences. However, this lack of agreement could be due in part to the uneven distribution and character of the evidence available, to the dating techniques used, and their resolution, and possibly to differing degrees of effort devoted to unravelling glacial history” (Grove, 2001, p. 54). Apparent differences in timing sometimes result from uniformitarian bias in dating methods, as described in part I of this series, and sometimes from natural Figure 2. The North Atlantic Oscillation. The N.A.O. is shown in “positive” or factors. Lichenometry is probably the normal mode; a “negative” N.A.O. index would have high barometric pressure chief method for Little Ice Age moraine over Iceland and low over the Azores. dating (methods and difficulties of lichenometry are described in Appendix B). But differences in timing may also be real. Differences in timing from region to region can be a natural response to period (Mann, 2002; Ogilvie and Jóns- contrary to naysayers (Mann, 2002), the climatic forcings (Juckes et al., 2007). In son, 2001). It has now come to be used Little Ice Age was still a phenomenon general, the Little Ice Age is considered for an equivocal period in late medieval that is reasonably definable on a global to start about 1350 and end around 1880. to early modern times, depending on basis. the definition. The definition may be The beginning of the Little Ice Age climate-based, or it may be based on in Iceland may be placed at about 1360 Did the “Medieval observed glacial response, which is a or as late as 1500, depending on the Warm Period” Exist? less used but more objective definition. climatic changes or glacier positions The Medieval Warm Period is even Regardless of the approach taken, and one chooses to define it (Ives, 2007). more controversial than the Little Ice 52 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Age. This is partly to be expected, since more readily interpreted by a significant Icelandic Glaciers the Medieval Warm Period is even more Medieval Warm Period (Anderson et al., Icelandic glaciers were much subdued distant in time from us than the Little 2007; Brown et al., 2005; Eiríksson et al., relative to today at the time of the coun- Ice Age. The end of the Little Ice Age, in 2000; Fréchette et al., 2006; Heyerdahl try’s settlement (Landnám). Rivers had fact, occurred during the instrumental and Lillieström, 1999; Keigwin, 1996; deeper, more established courses than period, the time of photography, and Ogilvie and Jónsson, 2001), including today (Landnåmsboken, 1997), and the a time with significant expansion of in locations outside the North Atlantic outwash plains (sandur) that are today population and technology. Whether region (Brown et al., 2005; Keigwin, barren and often ravaged by catastrophic the Medieval Warm Period existed is a 1996). Diluvialists, recognizing the cata- outburst floods were then generally fertile question entirely dependent on histori- strophic and providential nature of his- and well vegetated. The much-reduced ography and proxy data. tory, should be aware of the limitations nature of Icelandic glaciers prior to the of climate modeling, particularly when thirteenth century will be more fully Arguments against the Existence the models are based on uniformitarian documented in part III of this series. of the Medieval Warm Period assumptions and methods. In the realm Many dispute the existence of the Me- of history, natural history or otherwise, Icelandic Crops dieval Warm Period, especially strong the methods and records of history take As will be described in part III, cereal advocates of the man-caused global precedence. grains were grown in various parts of warming theory, some of whom also Whether the Medieval Warm Pe- Iceland during the Medieval Warm Pe- reject the existence of the Little Ice Age riod existed as a global phenomenon riod. As the climate cooled in the 1200s, itself (Mann, 2002; Ogilvie and Jóns- is another and more difficult question, the range of grain growing was steadily son, 2001). Most of the data marshalled though proxy evidence seems to confirm reduced, and finally ceased altogether against the existence of a significant it (Broecker, 2001; Grove, 1988). Fur- (Grove, 1988). It is now possible to grow period of time warmer than the present ther evaluation of the regional or global barley again on the southern coast of the are proxy data, not historical data, and nature of the Medieval Warm Period is Icelandic mainland (Figure 3) but not are typically tied to varves, radiocarbon a promising area for future research but on the north or east coasts. dating, or ice cores. In general, they is beyond the scope of this paper. are simply inconclusive data or very Norwegian Forests dependent on subjective or local factors, English and German Agriculture The Medieval Warm Period was not the not data that refute the Medieval Warm Both England and Germany had well- clima optimum in Norway; this occurred Period (e.g., Clement and Horn, 2001; established wine industries during early much earlier, as indicated by remains Cook et al., 2007; Retelle and Johnson, medieval times, and both were forced of pine forest on Hardangarvidda, far 2007; Stevens et al., 2001). These proxy to cease due to climate change (Fagan, above the present treeline (Lilleham- data have been smoothed and “mas- 2000). Agricultural changes extended mer, 1994). The greater warmth of the saged” and may be variously interpreted well beyond the wine industry and were Medieval Warm Period is, however, (Esper et al., 2005), including to denying not primarily driven by social conditions, indicated by the extent of pine-oak forest the Medieval Warm Period entirely or disease, or other nonclimatic factors, as where spruce-birch now predominates at least as anything comparable to cur- both weather records and general histori- and agricultural development at eleva- rent conditions (Mann and Jones, 2003; cal accounts indicate. Weather records tions above what can be sustained today Juckes et al., 2007). from England are particularly complete. (Helle, 1994).

Arguments for the Reality Swiss Agriculture and Settlement Agriculture in Greenland of the Medieval Warm Period Switzerland is particularly important in As will be described in part V, Norse While models such as that promoted studies of the Little Ice Age. Records are Greenland was an agricultural society. by the Intergovernmental Panel on very good, and impacts from growing gla- The population of Greenland was well Climate Change (IPCC) tend to down- ciers were both severe and widespread. in excess of what could be supported by play (if not deny) the Medieval Warm Valleys, farms and towns, and mountain the traditional Inuit (Eskimo) lifestyle. Period, others support it (Esper et al., passes were overrun by ice. The extent As advancing ice covered farms, increas- 2005; Guiot et al., 2005), and historiog- of agricultural development and trade ing cold stunted vegetation, and falling raphy (i.e., the body of contemporary routes indicate conditions in early me- water temperatures chased cod from the historical accounts) supports them. A dieval times as warm as or warmer than Davis Strait, Greenland’s agriculture considerable number of proxy data are today (Grove, 1988). collapsed (Fagan, 2000). Volume 48, Summer 2011 53

Little Ice Age may be a good means of discrediting some of these speculative models and, beyond that, illuminating the worldview struggle that underlies disagreements in beliefs about Earth history.

Good Science versus Political Manipulation Whenever you hear, “The science is in,” you know that science is out. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. Certainties require divine revelation, and true science is always subject to revision as new data are acquired and old ideas are disproved. No doubt the domi- nation of empiricism and evolutionism in Western culture over the past couple Figure 3. Photograph of barley stubble on south coast of Iceland, April, 2002. of centuries has conditioned the masses to accept such oxymorons as “scientific certainty” and “scientific consensus.” A dose of good science may inject an element of healthy debate into this arena, Elsewhere generation, since observers would then perhaps even helping to free science Records from other parts of the world be accustomed to the conditions. “Cli- from the clutches of a disingenuous and (Western Hemisphere, Southern Hemi- matic research from more recent times manipulative political elite. sphere) tend to be few and relatively has pointed to the 1400s as the period in recent. They document retreating ice Europe’s history when the climate was Good History versus with the end of the Little Ice Age but do the worst, and especially the 1430s and Political Manipulation? not generally extend far enough back to 1450s” (Bjørvik, 1994, p. 35). The Little Those enlightened by divine revelation document whether the Medieval Warm Ice Age appears to have peaked earlier understand the personal nature of evil in Period was global. The few proxies that and ended earlier in Switzerland and the world and the purposive corruption cover longer periods and low latitudes southeastern Europe than in the North of what God has created (2 Cor. 2:11). tend to be more prone to speculation Atlantic region, which is the subject The Bible is a book of history, and it is and interpretation, with the predictable of this paper (Grove, 1988). Thus, the no coincidence that so-called “postmod- controversy resulting (Grove, 1988; Lin- Little Ice Age was a period of significant ernism” (or “nonreason” per Schaeffer, derholm et al., 2009). variability, but it was also a time during 1982) rejects the value of history with a which cold, especially hard winters, skepticism ad absurdum and often ratio- clearly predominated (Eiríksson et al., nalizes falsehoods based on desired so- Little Ice Age 2000; Fagan, 2000). cial or political outcomes (Grenz, 1996; Was Not Uniformly Cold Veith, 1994). The threat this poses to Various fluctuations in climate, both science has been pointed out (Anderson, regional and more general, occurred The Little Ice Age—What 2007, 2008; Klevberg, 1999, 2008). That throughout the Little Ice Age (Fagan, Difference Does it Make? this is behind at least some of the junk 2000; Guiot et al., 2005). Phrases such The Little Ice Age holds a special poten- science (e.g., Gore, 2006) at the surface as “the terrible winter of 1678,” “the ter- tial for the application of science to the of the global climate change question is rible winter of 1684,” and “the terrible study of natural history—it is historically clear. Regardless of postmodern denials, winter of 1888” (Poirier, 1960) imply constrained. Natural history scenarios one’s view of history determines one’s that these were in fact unusual years. are often rendered believable by their view of the present and future, and it is Uniformly cold conditions would cease remoteness from observation, which the for this reason that the forces of evil have to be mentioned after approximately one Little Ice Age was not. Research into the so virulently attacked not just the verac- 54 Creation Research Society Quarterly

scientific constraint. The Little Ice Age provides significant constraint and opens avenues for quantitative evaluation of likely glacial deposits. This provides a new level of insight into geologic processes and deposits.

The North Atlantic Study Area As shown above, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age impacted far more than just the North Atlantic region (Figure 4). However, we have chosen to focus on the North Atlantic due to its good historical data, variety of climates (temperate to polar), degree of glaciation both before and during the Little Ice Age, and to scale back our task in the face of the enormity of the subject. We employ the definition of Jean Grove (Ogilvie and Jónsson, 2001): the Little Ice Age was a period of widespread gla- Figure 4. Map of North Atlantic region. Gray arrows indicate comparatively warm cial advance on a global scale during the ocean currents; black arrows indicate cold currents. past millennium. Much of Europe that shows evidence of past glaciation (e.g., Great Britain, Germany) was not affected by glaciation during the Little Ice Age and is therefore excluded from our ity of the Bible in general, but also the a single, significant ice age in the early study. We also excluded the Alps, since account of natural history it provides us. postdiluvian period. This position has Switzerland is in a continental setting The good historiography of the Little Ice been well developed and its plausibility less suitable to our desired application Age, especially from Europe, is helpful well established (Oard, 1990, 2004). to a postulated postdiluvial ice age. in this struggle over the nature of history. Evolutionists, loath to accept the idea One might also argue the choice of unique geologic events, speak of “ice of the study area may be partly due to Good Research versus Evolutionism ages” during the “Pleistocene” and other the ethnic heritage of the lead author. Many evolutionists have contributed times in Earth history, clear back over For various reasons, an abundance of good research for our understanding of 2 billion years ago (Oard, 1997). Since pertinent literature has not gained the the Little Ice Age, and we will cite them climate models are simply sophisticated attention of the English-speaking audi- throughout this series. We contend that and mathematically refined guesswork, ence. Unless otherwise noted, transla- their research is conducted despite their there is no means of constraining specu- tions from Norwegian and Danish in worldview, not because of it, and actually lation regarding a great ice age. However, this series and efforts at deciphering rests on principles of honesty, the objec- this is not true for the Little Ice Age. Icelandic and Old Norse are those of tive nature of reality, the uniformity of the lead author. natural processes, and allied concepts Quantifying “Quaternary” Geology derived from the Biblical worldview “Pleistocene” or “quaternary” geology (Morris, 1984; Schaeffer, 1982; Reed, in much of the Northern Hemisphere Summary 2001; Reed et al., 2004). deals largely with deposits believed to The complexities of paleoclimatology result from continental glaciation. Like belie efforts at simplistic affirmation or Evaluating the Great Ice Age paleoclimatology, historical geology is denial of the Little Ice Age, but evidence We have no historical proof of a great ice a branch of history that can roam unfet- is significant that terrestrial climate was age. Most creationists accept the idea of tered to the realms of absurdia without cooler for a period of several centuries Volume 48, Summer 2011 55

worldwide compared with today’s average followed by a more stable period 219–236. Kluwer Academic Publishers, age temperatures and the averages of the of relative climatic equilibrium. Boston, MA. early second millennium (the Medieval Paleolimnology – the study of earth his- Clement, R.M., and S.P. Horn. 2001. Pre- Warm Period). With the definition of the tory using samples of lake sediments. Columbian land-use history in Costa Little Ice Age as a period of roughly con- Proxy – a phenomenon that is math- Rica: a 3000-year record of forest clear- temporary advance of glaciers worldwide, ematically or causally related to ance, agriculture and fires from Laguna we affirm the existence of the Little Ice the phenomenon of interest; e.g., Zoncho. The Holocene 11:419–426. Age and find the term useful in describ- length of growing season can be Cook, T.L, R.S. Bradley, J.S. Stoner, and ing the period of roughly1350 to 1880. a proxy for average annual tem- P. Francus. 2007. Five thousand years Because good historiography and even perature. of sediment transfer in a high arctic wa- some instrumental records exist for this tershed recorded in annually laminated period in key locations of the North At- sediments from Lower Murray Lake, lantic region, the Little Ice Age provides Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada. a key to understanding climate change References Journal of Paleolimnology 41(1):77–94. in the postdiluvian period, tempering CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly Eiríksson, J., K.L. Knudsen, H. Haflíðason, political rhetoric and naturalistic specu- Anderson, K. 2007. Postmodern creationists? and J. Heinemeier. 2000. Chronology lations and offering hope for insights CRSQ 44:73–74. of late Holocene climatic events in the into the much more substantial Great Anderson, K. 2008. Response to “postmod- northern North Atlantic based on AMS Ice Age and glacial geologic processes ernism and relativism.” CRSQ 44:243. 14C cates and tephra markers from the in general. Anderson, R., G. Miller, J. Briner, N. volcano Hekla, Iceland. Journal of Qua- Acknowledgements: We thank David Lifton, and S. DeVogel. 2007. Ice-cap ternary Science 15(6):573–580. Sunwall, Arve Misund, and Mark history from northern Baffin Island: Esper, J., D.C. Frank, R.J.S. Wilson, and Armitage for help in acquiring scientific forcing mechanisms and comparison K.R. Briffa. 2005. Effect of scaling and papers and graphics files. Jan and Inger to the modern state. In Anonymous, regression on reconstructed tempera- Johanne Seland and the staff of Norges Proceedings of 37th International Arctic ture amplitude for the past millenium. Geologiske Undersøkelse assisted the Workshop, Program and Abstracts. The Geophysical Research Letters 32:L07711- lead author in obtaining a report for Earth Science Institute, University of L07711. the NORPAST project. We also thank Iceland. Reykjavík, Iceland. Fagan, B. 2000. The Little Ice Age: How Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize Barlow, L.K. 2001. The time period A.D. Climate Made History 1300–1850. Basic committee for generating widespread 1400–1980 in Central Greenland ice Books, New York, NY. interest in our research. This research cores in relation to the North Atlantic Fell, M. 1999. And Some Fell into Good Soil: was assisted by a grant from the Creation Sector. Climatic Change 48:101–119. A History of Christianity in Iceland. Peter Research Society. Deum laudamus (Job Bjørvik, H. 1994. Folketap og sammenbrudd Lang, New York, NY. 38:22–30). 1350 - 1520. Volume 4 of Aschehougs Fréchette, B., A.P. Wolfe, G.H. Miller, P.J.H. norges historie (in Norwegian). Asche- Richard, A. de Vernal. 2006. Vegetation houg & Co. (W. Nygaard), Oslo, Norway. and climate of the last interglacial on Broecker, W.S. 2001. Was the Medieval Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Palaeogeog- Glossary Warm Period global? Science, New Se- raphy, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology Diluvialist – one who maintains that ries 291:1497–1499. 236: 91–106. the Deluge of Noah’s day was the Brown, K.J., J.S. Clark, E.C. Grimm, J.J. Gore, A. 2006. An Inconvenient Truth: The principal global geologic event in Donovan, P.G. Mueller, B.C.S. Hansen, Planetary Emergency of Global Warming earth history since the Creation. and I. Stefanova. 2005. Fire cycles in and What We Can Do About It. Rodale, Historiography – the body of historical North American interior grasslands and New York, NY. records on a particular topic; also, their relation to prairie drought. PNAS Grenz, S.J. 1996. A Primer on Postmodern- the manner in which historical 102:8865–8870. ism. William B. Eerdmans, Grand research is conducted, particularly Caseldine, C. 1991. Lichenometric dat- Rapids, MI. in reference to a particular topic. ing, lichen population studies and Grove, A.T. 2001. The “Little Ice Age” and Postdiluvian – the period of earth history Holocene glacial history in Tröllaskagi, its geomorphological consequences after the Deluge (Genesis Flood), northern Iceland. In Maizels, J.K., and in Mediterranean Europe. In Ogilvie, probably consisting of a time of re- C. Caseldine (editors), Environmental A.E.J., and T. Jónsson (editors), The sidual catastrophism and a great ice Change in Iceland: Past and Present, pp. Iceberg in the Mist: Northern Research 56 Creation Research Society Quarterly

in Pursuit of a “Little Ice Age,” pp. Investigations in Norway in 2006. Norsk Grand Rapids, MI. 121–136. Kluwer Academic Publishers, vassdrags og energidirektoratet. (Nor- Nordli, P.Ø. 2001. Reconstruction of nine- Boston, MA. wegian Water Resources and Energy teenth century summer temperatures Grove, J.M. 1988. The Little Ice Age. Directorate), Oslo, Norway. in Norway by proxy data from farmers’ Metheun & Co., Ltd. New York, NY. Klevberg, P. 1999. The philosophy of se- diaries. In Ogilvie, A.E.J., and T. Jóns- Grove, J.M. 2001. The initiation of the quence stratigraphy--part I: philosophic son (editors), The Iceberg in the Mist: “Little Ice Age” in regions round the background. CRSQ 36:72–80. Northern Research in Pursuit of a “Little North Atlantic. In Ogilvie, A.E.J., and T. Klevberg, P. 2008. Postmodernism and rela- Ice Age,” pp. 201–218. Kluwer Academic Jónsson (editors), The Iceberg in the Mist: tivism. CRSQ 44:243. Publishers, Boston, MA. Northern Research in Pursuit of a “Little Kugelmann, O. 1991. Dating recent glacier Oard, M.J. 1990. An Ice Age Caused by the Ice Age,” pp. 53–82. Kluwer Academic advances in the Svarfadalur-Skíðadalur Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation Publishers, Boston, MA. area of northern Iceland by means of Research, Dallas, TX. Guiot, J., A. Nicault, C. Rathgeber, J.L. a new lichen curve.1991. In Maizels, Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gi- Edouard, F. Guibal, G. Pichard, and J.K., and C. Caseldine (editors). Envi- gantic Submarine Landslides? Creation C. Till. 2005. Last-millenium summer- ronmental Change in Iceland: Past and Research Society Monograph No. 6, temperature variations in western Eu- Present, pp. 203–218. Kluwer Academic Chino Valley, AZ. rope based on proxy data. The Holocene Publishers, Boston, MA. Oard, M.J. 2004. Frozen in Time: The Woolly 15:489–500. Landnåmsboken [record of Landnám A.D. Mammoth, the Ice Age, and the Bible. Helle, K. 1994. Under kirke og kongemakt 870–930]. 1997. Translated into Nor- Master Books, Green Forest, AR. 1130 - 1350. Volume 3 of Aschehougs wegian by L. Kjørsvik Schei. Aschehoug, Oerlemans, J. 2005. Extracting a climate norges historie (in Norwegian). Asche- Oslo, Norway. signal from 169 glacier records. Science houg & Co. (W. Nygaard), Oslo, Norway. Lillehammer, A. 1994. Fra jeger til bonde— 308:675–677. Hendy, E.J., M.K. Gagan, C.A. Alibert, M.T. inntil 800 e.Kr. Volume 1 of Aschehougs Ogilvie, A.E.J., and T. Jónsson. 2001. “Little McCulloch, J.M. Lough, and P.J. Isdale. norges historie (in Norwegian). Asche- Ice Age” research: a perspective from 2002. Abrupt decrease in tropical Pacific houg & Co. (W. Nygaard), Oslo, Norway. Iceland. In Ogilvie, A.E.J., and T. Jóns- sea surface salinity at end of Little Ice Linderholm, H.W., J.A. Björklund, K. Sefti- son (editors), The Iceberg in the Mist: Age. Science 295:1511–1514. gen, B.E. Gunnarson, I. Drobyshev, J.-H. Northern Research in Pursuit of a “Little Heyerdahl, T., and P Lillieström. 1999. Ingen Jeong, P. Stridbeck, and Y. Liu. 2009. Ice Age,” pp. 53–82. Kluwer Academic Grenser (in Norwegian). J.M. Stenersens Dendroclimatology in Fennoscandia— Publishers, Boston, MA. Forlag, Oslo, Norway. from past accomplishments to future Pienitz, R., J.P. Smol, W.M. Last, P.R. Leavitt, Ives, J.D. 2007. Skaftafell in Iceland: A potentials. Climate of the Past Discus- and B.F. Cumming. 2000. Multi-proxy Thousand Years of Change. Ormstunga, sions 5:1415–1461. Holocene palaeoclimatic record from a Reykjavík, Iceland. Mann, M.E. 2002. Little Ice Age. In Mac- saline lake in the Canadian Subarctic. Juckes, M.N., M.R. Allen, K.R. Briffa, J. Cracken, M.C., and J.S. Perry (editors), The Holocene 10:673–686. Esper, G.C. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T.J. Os- The Earth System: Physical and Chemi- Poirier, R. (1957) 1960. L’Epopée des born, and S.L. Weber. 2007. Millennial cal Dimensions of Global Environmental grandes travaux. Translated by Margaret temperature reconstruction intercom- Change, pp.505–509. Volume I in Crosland as Engineering Wonders of the parison and evaluation. Climate of the Munn, T. (editor-in-chief). Encyclopedia World. Barnes and Noble, New York, NY. Past 3:591–609. of Global Environmental Change, John Reed, J.K. 2001. Natural History in the Keigwin, L.D. 1996. The Little Ice Age and Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK. Christian Worldview. Creation Research Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones. 2003. Global Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ. Sea. Science 274:1503–1508 surface temperatures over the past two Reed, J.K., P. Klevberg, C. Bennett, J. Kirkbride, M.P., and A.J. Dugmore. 2001. millennia. Geophysical Research Letters Akridge, C.R. Froede Jr., and T. Lott. Can lichenometry be used to date the 30:CLM5–1-5–4. 2004. Beyond scientific creationism. “Little Ice Age” glacial maximum in McKinzey, K.M., J.F. Orwin, and T. Brad- CRSQ 41:216–230. Iceland? In Ogilvie, A.E.J., and T. Jóns- well. 2005. A revised chronology of key Retelle, M., and B. Johnson. 2007. High son (editors), The Iceberg in the Mist: Vatnajökull (Iceland) outlet glaciers resolution, multiproxy analysis of lami- Northern Research in Pursuit of a “Little during the Little Ice Age. Annals of nated sediments from Cape Hurd Lake, Ice Age,” pp. 151–167. Kluwer Academic Glaciology 42:171–179. southwestern Devon Island, Nunavut, Publishers, Boston, MA. Morris, H.M. 1984. The Biblical Basis for Canada: a contribution to the 2,000 Kjøllmoen, B. (editor). 2007. Glaciological Modern Science. Baker Book House, year synthesis of climate variability from Volume 48, Summer 2011 57

Arctic lakes, Phase 2. In Proceedings of 37th International Arctic Workshop, pp. 212–213. The Earth Science Institute, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. Rian, Ø. 1994. Den nye begynnelsen 1520- 1660. Volume 5 of Aschehougs norges historie (in Norwegian). Aschehoug & Co. (W. Nygaard), Oslo, Norway. Schaeffer, F.A. 1982. How Should We Then Live? In The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer V:83–277. Crossway Books, Westchester, IL. Stevens, L.R., H.E. Wright Jr., and E. Ito. 2001. Proposed changes in seasonality of climate during the Late glacial and Holocene at Lake Zeribar, Iran. The Holocene 11:747–755. Figure 5. Glacier schematic. Thompson, A., and A. Jones. 1986. Rates and causes of proglacial river terrace formation in southeast Iceland: an application of lichenometric dating techniques. the glacier is steep, with a large zone gradient, a slight change in ELA may Boreas 15:231–246. of accumulation, much ice can move produce a very large response by greatly Veith, G.E., Jr. 1994. Postmodern Times: far below the equilibrium line altitude increasing or decreasing the ratio of ac- A Christian Guide to Contemporary (ELA), even to sea level. Such a glacier cumulation area to ablation area, but the Thought and Culture. Crossway Books, may respond quickly to changes in pre- movement of ice over the low gradient is Wheaton, IL. cipitation. If the glacier follows a low likely to be slow. Glaciers that respond

Appendix A: Glaciology Primer

Glaciers have the following components. • A zone of accumulation, where snowfall exceeds snowmelt and ice is produced. • A zone of ablation, where annual melting of ice exceeds the formation of ice from snow. • A firn line, an elevation above which precipitation falls as snow. • An equilibrium line altitude, the elevation that separates the zone of accumulation from the zone of ablation (usually very close to the firn line). These components are illustrated in Figure 5. Geography significantly impacts Figure 6. Photograph of lichens on basalt rock. For lichenometry, Rhizocarpon the response of glaciers to climate. If geographicum is preferred. Photograph by Mark Armitage. 58 Creation Research Society Quarterly slowly to changes have large lag times. Appendix B: McKinzey et al., 2005), a measurement For example, if a particularly warm and Lichenometry method must be defined (Kirkbride and dry decade were to interrupt otherwise Dugmore, 2001), local curves linked to normal years, a glacier with a long lag Lichenometry is a commonly used known dates (e.g., gravestones, build- time could be stable or actually advance means of dating moraines. When the ings) are needed (Grove, 1988; Kirk- throughout that dry and warm decade, ice withdraws, rocks are colonized by li- bride and Dugmore, 2001; Kugelmann, and begin receding during subsequent chens (Figure 6). The method is simple: 1991), and growth rates may be nonlin- years that are wetter and colder again. In find the largest lichen, measure it, and ear. In some cases, lichenometric dates Iceland, differences in lag times between figure out how old the moraine is by the have been disproven by tephrochronol- some of the steeper, smaller glaciers and rate of growth of the lichen. In practice, ogy or other methods (Kirkbride and large outlet glaciers may have exceeded it is not very exact, with lots of potential Dugmore, 2001; McKinzey at al., 2005). a century (Kirkbride and Dugmore, problems (Grove, 1988; Kirkbride and Nonetheless, it can provide an educated 2001). With differences in lag times, Dugmore, 2001; Thompson and Jones, guess for features from the Little Ice Age inferring climate from glacial response 1986). A better statistical basis is needed (Thompson and Jones, 1986). can be tricky. for the “largest” lichen (Caseldine, 1991; Volume 48, Summer 2011 59

Reevaluation of Earth Age Using Hung’s Dating Model

Introduction The dispute on the age of Earth between scientists and Biblical theologians has continued for centuries. Currently, most scientists claim an age of 4.5 billion years (US Geological Survey, (2) 1997; Dalrymple, 2001), whereas James Ussher, priest of the Anglican Church, calculated it to be 6014 years from the present (Ussher, 1650–1654). Intensive study made by the group Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) concluded that the age of Earth should be thousands of years but not billions of years (DeYoung, 2005). The author’s recent publication pointed out that the traditional model, which geologists use in dating the age of minerals and rocks, contains serious theoretical deficiencies (Hung, 2004, 2008). As a result, the traditional model overestimates the age of minerals. These deficiencies were (3) inevitable because of lack of computational technology and equipment when the traditional dating model was developed. (for i = 1 to 3, j = 1 to 3, and k = 1 to R when k-1 >0) The same article also presented Hung’s dating model, which was developed with sound theoretical bases, for dating the age of rocks and minerals. In the above equations, vi are the components of Darcy

This paper applies Hung’s dating model to convert the velocity, Ki are the components of saturated hydraulic conduc- age of Earth claimed by scientists to a more realistic age and tivity, krw is the relative conductivity, h is the hydraulic head, presents the processes and results of the conversion. The con- xi are the spatial coordinates, Dij is the component of apparent verted age of Earth is expected to be free from the huge error hydrodynamic dispersion tensor, ck is the concentration of the inherited by the traditional model. kth daughter-nuclide in the R member decay chain desorbed in

the water; Φ is the effective porosity, Sw is the degree of water Description of Hung’s Dating Model saturation, R is the retardation factor, λ is the radionuclide and Traditional Model decay constant, A is the atomic weight, and subscripts k, i and Because uranium minerals are constantly inundated in a j represent the order of daughter nuclide in the decay series groundwater stream, a geochronological dating model should and x, y, z the spatial coordinates, respectively. involve solving the flow equations and solute transport system Because of the generic site nature of the model, the same equations (e.g., Hung, 1986, 2000, 2004, 2008; Hydrogeologic properties for the ambient host rock and mineral collected in Inc., 1995; Leak and Lilly, 1997; Yeh et al., 2002). The flow the original Hung’s model are also used in this analysis (Hung, equations and solute transport system equations used in Hung’s 2004, 2008). They are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively for dating model are summarized in a Cartesian coordinate system the porosity, density, hydraulic conductivity, and dispersivity. (Hung, 2004, 2008) as: The processes of solving the above dynamic equations are extremely complex, and involve tedious numerical analyses. To avoid these complex processes, the traditional model sim- (1) plified them by imposing two crude assumptions: (1) a closed system and (2) ultimate equilibrium. The first assumption (for i = 1 to 3) eliminates the necessity of flow equations, and the second assumption avoids its tedious transient decay calculations (Hung, 60 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Table 1. Collected porosity and density for ambient host geologic formation. As stated previously, the ages of the earth rock and mineral. claimed by scientists were calculated based on the traditional model, which contained large errors in its calculations. These Transport Porosity, Density, errors may be corrected by converting an age obtained from 3 media unit-less g/cm the traditional model to a more realistic age with Hung’s dating Ambient host rock 0.03 2.67 model. The conversion starts with the application of Hung’s Mineral 0.01 2.65 model to a conceptual model. The conceptual model assumes the uranium mineral is contained in an igneous rock formed in the earth’s crust and immersed in a groundwater environment. The ambient groundwater flow is slow to near standing still, because of the impervious host rock. 2008). As a result, the solution of the above system equations Based on this conceptual model, Hung’s model receives was simplified and expressed as (Durrance, 1986; Getty and the initial condition of radionuclides, which contains only one DePaolo, 1995): unit weight (one unit of mass per unit of sample mass) of 238U, and simulates the variation of 206Pb/238U ratio with time. The simulations are conducted for both Hung’s dating model and (4) the traditional model. The results of simulations are plotted and presented in Figure 1. The same figure is also used for the conversion of the earth’s age. The conversion takes two steps. 238 where, λ238 represents the decay constant for U, t represents The first step applies the conventional age of Earth of 4.5 billion the time, and 206Pb(t) and 238U(t) represent the number of atoms years old to the simulated 206Pb/238U versus time line from the for 206Pb and 238U, respectively. Thus, the age of a mineral can traditional model (Figure 1). The plot shows that at the time be calculated from Equation 4 once the 206Pb/238U ratio of the of 4.5 billion years the 206Pb/238U ratio is 0.62. The second step mineral is measured and its 206Pb(0)/238U(t) ratio is properly applies the same 206Pb/238U ratio of 0.62 to the curve obtained estimated. Equation 4 is the basic equation of the traditional from Hung’s dating model to obtain the age of earth to be model. Unfortunately, the traditional model constantly over- 220,000 years old. The results of conversion are also plotted estimates the age of minerals and rocks and is, therefore, and presented in Figure 1. The result of conversion indicated impractical for dating application (Hung, 2008). that the age of Earth should be 220,000 years old, rather than An exact model, which is known as Hung’s dating model 4.5 billion years old. The result of evaluated Earth age is much (Hung, 2004, 2008), solves the exact partial differential closer to the age claimed by the RATE group. equation system listed in Equations (1–3). The model was implemented in a personal computer. The model is applied Conclusions to convert the age of the earth obtained from the traditional This study utilizes Hung’s dating model to convert the age of model to a more realistic age and thereby eliminates the errors the earth claimed by the geologists to a more realistic age. The inherited by the traditional model. model adapts a conceptual model that assumes the uranium mineral was formed in the earth’s crust when the earth was cre- Reevaluation of the Age of Earth ated and inundated in groundwater environment. The ambient Scientists claim the age of Earth is 4.5 billion years old groundwater flow is slow to near standing still because of the (Dalrymple, 2001) based on the dating results obtained from impervious host rock.

Table 2. Collected hydraulic conductivities and dispersivities for ambient host rock and mineral.

Hydraulic conductivity, cm/sec Dispersivity, m Transport media Horizontal Vertical Longitudinal Lateral Vertical Ambient host rock 4.0E-9 2.0E-9 0.1 0.05 0.05 Mineral 4.0E-10 2.0E-9 0.1 0.05 0.05 Volume 48, Summer 2011 61

Figure 1. The simulated results of the time variation of 206Pb/238U ratio from the traditional model and Hung’s dating model. The initial condition of the mineral contains one unit of 238U only; the mineral was formed in the earth crust and inundated in a groundwater stream. These results of simulation are used to convert the age of the earth from that claimed by scientists to an age simulated by Hung’s dating model. The results of conversion are also presented together in this figure.

The result of conversion indicated that the age of Earth References should be 220,000 years old, rather than 4.5 billion years old. Dalrymple, G. Brent. 2001. The age of the earth in the twentieth The result of evaluated Earth age is much closer to the age the century: a problem solved. Geological Society of London Special RATE group claimed. Publication 190, pp. 205–221. DeYoung, D. 2005. Thousands … Not Billions. Master Books, Green Forest. AR. Acknowledgments: The author would like to express his sincere Durrance, E.M.. 1986. Radioactivity in Geology. Ellis Horwood Lim- gratitude to Dr. Charles Chang, Dr. Jing Chang Chen, Dr. Ying- ited, New York, NY. Hui Shih, Dr. Hansen Su, professor Liang Chi Hsu, professor Getty, S.R., and D.J. DePaolo. 1995. Quaternary geochronology us- Tom Keenan, assistant professor Kenneth Hung, and assistant ing the U-Th-Pb method. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59: professor Sarah Ying for their valuable advice and suggestions 3267–3272. throughout this study. Hung, C.Y. 1986. An optimum groundwater transport model for ap- 62 Creation Research Society Quarterly

plication to the assessment of health effects due to land disposal difference groundwater flow model. USGS Open-File Report of radioactive waste. Proceedings of Nuclear and Chemical Waste 97–571. Management 6:41–50. Ussher, James. 1650–1654. Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Hung, C.Y. 2000. User’s guide for PRESTO-EPA-CPG/POP operation Quoted in Robert Newman and Herman Eckelmann, Jr., 2000, system—a multimedia risk assessment model. Version 4.2: EPA Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, Interdisciplinary Biblical report, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, EPA 402-R-00–007. Research Institute, Hatfield, PA. Hung, C. 2004. Isotopic geochronology by means of a dynamic U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Age of the earth, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ simulation model—part I. Uranium series method. Transactions, gip/geotime.html. Geophysical Union 85(47): F1925. Yeh, G.T., H.J. Lin, D.R. Richards, C.A. Talbot, J.R. Cheng, H.P. Hung, C. 2008. A realistic simulation model for uranium series Cheng, and N.L. Jones. 2002. FEMWATER—a three dimen- geochronological dating. Creation Research Society Quarterly sional finite element computer model for simulating density- 45:41–52. dependent flow and transport in variably saturated media—docu- Hydrogeologic, Inc. 1995. VAM3DF: Variably saturated analysis mentation of groundwater modeling system (GMS). Version 4.0: model in three-dimensions for the data fusion system. Docu- U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. mentation and User’s Guide. Hydrogeologic, Inc., Reston, VA. Leake, S.A., and M.R. Lilly. 1997. Documentation of a computer Cheng Yeng Hung program FHB1 for assignment of transient specified-flow and [email protected] specified-head boundaries in applications of the modular finite- Retired from Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington DC. Volume 48, Summer 2011 63

The policy of the editorial staff of CRSQ is to allow letters to the editor to express a variety of views. As such, the content of all letters is solely the opinion of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of theCRSQ editorial staff or the Creation Research Society.

Mammals and Mammal-like Reptiles: Within Their Kinds

Our story starts with the discovery of or formed by the life-form’s genetic The point is this: do not always hold the earliest known modern mammalian potential, thus creating a significant gap today’s life-forms as being the yardstick jaw hinge at 200 million years old, and between mammals and mammal-like of the way things have always been. Also, then, at 195 million years old, a mammal reptiles (Hect, 2006). allow the greatest gift the Creator has be- called Hadrocodium wui. This creature This principle operates in other areas stowed on His creation—the wonderful had middle ear bones attached to the also. The brain cells of early mammals ability to adapt, which, thanks to sym- jaw, as in modern mammals. are found in early Cynodonts but are not metric variation, will always be within Yet it is dated 45 million years before found in the advanced forms, once again the kind, no matter what features life- evolutionists expected such a develop- not a handover or re-evolution but cre- forms have or could produce (Brown, ment (Gore, 2003). According to CT ated or formed by the life-form’s genetic 1999, 2009). scans, these shrewlike creatures had a potential within creation (Kermack et modern brain (Anonymous, 2011). al., 1981). References These discoveries are enough to Like the platypus, there were some CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly wipe out any thought of evolution of any unique mammals in the past, some with Anonymous. 2011. Mammals began brainy manner in the Jurassic, leaving all that a different sound-conducting system, and nosey. New Scientist 210:16. we see, or could be, from then on being using some reptilelike bones in the jaw. Brown, C. 1999. The principle of symmetric within the kind. Mammal-like reptiles, It must be noted they were within their variation as it relates to silent mutations. for the most part, were too specialized kind. CRSQ 36:100. to be the ancestors of mammals. To my Marsupials are born with a reptile- Brown, C. 2009. Symmetric variation and mind, their skull profile is not the same. like jaw joint. Did they once have natural selection. CRSQ 46:142. They were far larger than those shrewlike reptilelike bones in the jaw that have Brown, C. 2010a. Tetrapod footprints stop creatures and, for the most part, their now moved into the ear? Most of the evolution in its tracks. CRSQ 46:314. reign ended in the Triassic. marsupial ear is akin to the placental Brown, C. 2010b. The origin of the whale. At 164 million years is a mammal ear. Only the stapies bears a slight CRSQ 47:161. with fur and modern skin structures and resemblance to those of mammal-like Gore, R. 2003. The rise of mammals. Na- a beaverlike tail, named Castorocauda reptiles. However, it must be pointed out tional Geographic 203:2–38. lutrasimilis (Hect, 2006). This creature that [according to evolutionary theory] Hect, J. 2006. Jurassic ‘beaver’ is new fossil had overlapping ribs, a feature found in mammal-like reptiles died out long be- record. New Scientist 189:16. Cynodonts but not in those mammal- fore marsupials entered this world. So, Kermack, K.A., F. Mussett, and H. Rignacy. like reptiles viewed to have evolved any shared features would either be due 1981. The skull of Morganucodon. into mammals. Hence, this feature was to their being directly created or brought Zoological Journal of Linnean Society not handed down nor did it re-evolve, about because of the life-form’s genetic 71:1–14. because re-evolution simply does not potential (Brown, 2010a, 2010b). occur. Rather, they were either created, Colin Brown United Kingdom 64 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Harmonizing Humphreys, Hartnett, and Gentry

Humphreys (1994) pioneered the white that the 1915 paper of Einstein actually References: hole theory in 1994 by solving Einstein’s points to a static universe. Therefore, Gentry, R.V. 2002–2005. http://www.ori- field equations in a novel way. A white space expansion happened only in the onfdn.org/ hole continuously created matter in the early cosmos. Dark energy was proposed Hartnett, J. 2007. Starlight, Time and the past, because no white hole has been ob- to account for the rapid expansion of New Physics. Creation Book Publishers, served so far. Therefore, the white hole space. Dark energy takes the energy Powder Springs, GA. must have existed in the past. Hartnett budget of 74% in the standard model. Humphreys, D.R. 1994. Starlight and (2007) modified the white hole theory Since space is not expanding, therefore, Time, Master Books, Colorado using Cameli’s solution to Einstein’s no dark energy is required. If space has Springs, CO. field equations by using an additional been expanding, the present radius of the coordinate, namely, the velocity of ex- universe should be about 46 billion light pansion. By so doing, Hartnett was able years. Yet, the presently observable radius to solve all problems of dark matter. of the universe is only 13.75 billion light Gentry (2005–2005) showed that space years. This means that the universe is cannot be expanded, because space not expanding. expansion violates the law of conserva- tion of matter/energy. Gentry proposed Christopher Chui [email protected]

Nephilim vs. Modern Man? A Critique

It is a difficult thing to critique a fellow lier work he has published on dinosaurs etc.) represent pre-Flood, part-human, Christian’s work. This is made more (Klenck, 2010b) and the location of the “Nephilim” populations. In order to difficult when you know this person, Garden of Eden (Klenck, 2010c), but incorporate the available fossil material when you know he is a fellow young- all of these works rely on a set of starting for both modern and non-modern man earth creationist, when you have many assumptions to which many creationists into his model, Klenck must place the friends in common, and when you know take exception. A lot of this discussion Flood late, but he then adds a multi- you sometimes make similar mistakes. necessarily goes back to the arguments tude of continental, hemispherical, or However, the purpose of having peer- between the “American” and “Europe- worldwide disasters prior to the Flood reviewed journals is to submit one’s ideas an” schools of creationism about where (alá Cuvier?) in order to bury the fos- to a community for their comments. to place the pre-Flood/Flood/post-Flood sils in the order he requires. Being that Thus, it is critical for creationists to boundaries in the rock record, and much much of the material he cites in this both submit ideas and receive criticism of that depends on how much of the article was found in shallow rock lay- of those ideas. uniformitarian model one is willing to ers or in caves, and that he claims this I was propelled to write this par- accept. Klenck seems to take the evolu- material is pre-Flood, it must not have ticular review by a recent article in this tionary dates in order, but compresses been disturbed during the entire Flood journal by Dr. Joel D. Klenck. In this their timescale, without explanation. He year. This would include the inundatory paper (Klenck, 2010a), he makes some is not the first to attempt this. and recessive stages (Walker, 1994), interesting points about human history Klenck’s main idea is that the non- which most Flood geologists believe and the relationship between modern modern human remains found in vari- would have caused significant geologi- and non-modern humans in the fossil ous places in the world (including H. cal deposition and erosion, respectively. record. His thesis nests nicely with ear- neandethalensis, H. erectus, H. habilis, Since some of the supposed pre-Flood Volume 48, Summer 2011 65 caves have no significant isturbanced In much of this article, he assumes radiometric date, but if he is going to layers above the non-modern remains, his conclusions before demonstrating question the relative magnitude of the one wonders what geological work was their validity. For example, he frequently dates, he is going to have to question left for the Flood to do. references “populations” of Nephilim, their order, indeed, the entire validity of This harkens back to the famous but where does it say that in the Bible? It radiometric dating, and then he is going error of William Buckland who, after only says some Nephilim existed. Their to have to question both the absolute and studying the fossil bones in Kirkdale numbers are not given. He also assumes relative dating of each the geological Cave (cf. Mortenson, 2004), concluded Nephilim “reproduction,” but the Bible eras in earth history. But, he does not they represented a group of animals only says some Nephilim existed, not even begin this process. This is a glaring killed in Noah’s Flood. But this meant that they could, in turn, reproduce with inconsistency. that everything prior to that in the fos- each other or with humankind. One of I also take exception to some of his sil record, and that includes nearly all these might be true, but he has made textual analysis. For instance, he posits of it, was antediluvian. As many other no argument for it beyond the initial at least two different times for the thriv- geologists of the day believed, Buckland assumption, which he then incorporates ing of Nephilim, based on Genesis 6:4. thought the Flood did little to no geo- into his model and throughout his text. The context of this verse is a singularity, logical work, being restricted to creating Also, where does the Scripture indicate written in the past tense, by the author, surface deposits called “diluvium.” He the Nephilim had a separate “culture” as if the author were saying, “They were would later recant this opinion, saying from the rest of mankind? This one there on Thursday, and also afterwards.” that attributing anything to Noah’s Flood point seems particularly strange, but it Genesis 6:4 does not indicate a waning was a mistake. When Louis Agassiz’s is necessary for his model. Finally, to and waxing of Nephilim “culture.” I ideas on the Ice Ages (first published in have a reproducing population with a agree with him that the time of the 1837) were finally accepted, the dilu- specific culture, you need females. In Nephilim was only prior to the Flood, vium was explained and the last vestiges Genesis, the Nephilim are specifically and I believe he did an excellent job of the evidence for Noah’s Flood were referred to as “men” (Gen. 6:4b). Does exegeting this point. Interestingly, his removed from secular geology. Even this mean no female Nephilim existed? treatment of this subject exactly paral- though Klenck affirms young–earth No, but out of two possibilities the Bible lels that of Alien Intrusion (Bates, 2010). creationism, unlike Buckland and oth- only mentions one. All these points are Likewise, I take issue with the way ers, he is in danger of following in their consistent with, but also assumed by, his he treats the genetic ancestry of Noah. footsteps. For example, what criteria idea that the Nephilim are represented He says, “Noah was a direct patrilineal does he use for determining whether by non-modern man. Thus, he assumes descendant of Adam,” which is true, but or not a geological feature was created his model is true from the outset but fails he also says, “The name [Nephilim] before, during, or after the Flood? If to fill several gaping holes in his logic. separates these people from direct de- Neanderthals are pre-Flood, the Flood Several additional points can be scendants of Adam,” which is not true, essentially did no geological work, and made against his thesis. First, much of for all people were descendants of Adam, the Flood is thus irrelevant for any dis- the material he cites has been heavily even the Nephilim! Perhaps he meant cussion of geology. filtered and thoroughly vetted by the to include “patrilineal” in his second In fact, the Flood is the one place evolutionary community. For example, quote, but he did not. in Scripture where we can turn for an “we should expect to find our suite of There are several schools of thought explanation of the origin of the rock morphological traits [of modern man] on whether or not there were Nephilim and fossil records. Klenk’s assertion in the earliest paleoanthropological genes in the pre-Flood human popula- that the dinosaurs were wiped out and, contexts,” and, “these remains should tion, and this depends on one’s view by association, that the non-modern be associated with the earliest radioiso- of who the “sons of God” were. In my “Nephilim” humans were buried in a tope dates, fauna, flora, or other indices experience, the second-most common series of huge disasters is not an “argu- that show these remains are older than theory is that the “sons of God” are the ment from silence” but a “conspicuous assemblages from non-modern human descendants of Seth and the “daughters absence” in Scripture; it is amazing that populations.” In both these examples, of men” are the descendants of Cain. If the author (or authors, if it includes eye- he is appealing to data collected and this is true, one is left wondering why a witness accounts [see below]) of Genesis interpreted in light of assumptions de- mingling of such closely related peoples did not mention any of these purported rived from the philosophical construct would produce offspring that were so calamities in the one and a half millen- of naturalism. In some places, he adds radically different in behavior from the nia prior to the Flood. “supposedly” or “allegedly” prior to a non-hybrids. It is also not strongly sup- 66 Creation Research Society Quarterly ported by other usages of “sons of God” different ideas in this verse. One is that If their progeny, the Nephilim, could in Scripture (Bates, 2010). Noah had an ancestry. The other is that reproduce with people, eventually every The most common theory seems Noah was righteous. The link between human line could have become tainted. to be that the “sons of God” are fallen these two ideas is open for debate. Alternatively, even without Nephilim angels and the “daughters of men” are If Taylor (1994) is correct, and this reproduction, they could have taken ev- regular human females. This begs sev- is debatable, there is a break in author- ery living female simultaneously. They eral questions: Do angels have human ship in the middle of 6:9. In this case, could have killed off all the pure people chromosomes? If not, are they genetic the toledoth in 6:9 would be referring (not that God would have allowed them engineers? If they did create human- backwards, to Noah’s eyewitness ac- to). Or, they could have killed off some angel hybrids, could these, in turn, re- count, and everything after that is part of or most of the people and claimed the produce with people to create ¾-human, the eyewitness account of Noah’s sons, remaining women for themselves. If ¼-angel hybrids? Etc. I find neither of which concludes in 10:1a. This would God removed Noah at any time prior to these theories perfectly satisfactory, yet do great harm to the idea that Noah’s the completion of any these diabolical the “fallen angels” concept is a better genealogy is germane to his perfection, scenarios, we would get the same result: fit, despite the unanswered questions, but even this is a minor point. no Nephilim genes in the post-Flood hu- especially when considering the relevant Importantly, prior to the Flood, the man population. This is important, but New Testament passages (see below). only person to whom righteousness is “no Nephilim genes on the ark because What does Noah being “perfect in ascribed is Noah. The Bible does not say Noah was perfect in his generations” is his generations” (Gen. 6:9b) mean? that about any other person living at the an assumption that must be backed up Klenck asserts that this means Noah had time, including the patriarchs who were with more data, and the Bible gives us no Nephilim ancestry. Even though I alive when God gave Noah the com- nothing else. agree (for different reasons), there are mand to build the ark. If the command Recent genetic evidence, however, several factors to consider before we came 120 years prior to the Flood (Gen. puts Klenck in an awkward place. Now can draw such a conclusion. Here, the 6:3), Noah’s father (Lamech) and grand- that the field of ancient DNA studies has Hebrew word for perfect is tamiyim, father (Methuselah) were still alive. If advanced far enough, we are able to get meaning “without spot or blemish” Noah’s righteousness were based on his useable DNA out of some of the best- (Brown et al., 2000). This could be heritage, Lamech and Methuselah, and preserved ancient bones, including clas- referring to his ancestry, or to his faith, at least all of Noah’s full siblings (if there sic Neanderthal skeletons and others. or both. How can we tell? Interestingly, were any) and possibly many of his cous- DNA from Neanderthal (Green et al., there is quite a bit of variation among the ins (if there were any) should have been 2010) and the enigmatic “Denisovan” major English translations regarding this included. Instead, as the Bible says, he (Reich et al., 2010) populations indicate verse. Some (e.g., KJV) take two different was considered righteous because of his both these populations interbred, inde- Hebrew words in this verse and translate faith. This is the specific reason given. pendently, with the ancestors of modern them both “generation.” The word for The idea that no Nephilim genes man. The small percentage of shared ge- “generation” in the first half of 6:9 is were on the ark might be correct, es- netic features can be interpreted as evi- toledoth, which equates to “account” or pecially since the Messiah should not dence for limited interbreeding between “ancestry” (Brown et al. 2000). In the or could not have had any ancestors, two populations (as the evolutionary second half, the word is dowr, roughly especially male ancestors, that were evil studies claim) or the complete mixing meaning “time” or “place” or even “con- angels, but there are multiple possible of two populations of different sizes (if temporaneous generation.” The English ways for this to be true. First, perhaps the Neanderthals were a single family word “generation” is ambiguous in this there was a problem with Nephilim that merged with other people groups case, as different senses can be attrib- genes spreading throughout in the hu- as they all spread out from Babel, for uted to two separate Hebrew words. In man population, and perhaps God did example). Klenck has a choice to make: contrast, The New International Version single out Noah because he was perfect either Nephilim genes were on the ark, translates toledoth as “account” and dowr in his genealogy (all members of his or Neanderthals and Denisovans are as “among the people of his time,” which family also had to be “perfect,” includ- post-Flood. His thesis is contradicted by brings out more of the semantic meaning the wives of unknown genealogy). the most recent discoveries in genetics. ing of these two words. There are many This is not the only possible way to solve In his article, he lists three charac- other variations found among the various the riddle, however, for there was more teristics that made the Nephilim dif- translations, and this causes confusion. than one way for the sons of God to con- ferent. The second (physical prowess) The main point is that there are two taminate every single human lineage. and third (valor) are non-definitive, for Volume 48, Summer 2011 67 people today fall into those categories. work to do before we can make any firm This is controversial, but if so, it does The first (appearance) is false, for it is conclusions, and new data may chal- not sound like we have much to fear the combination of ancestry, physical lenge us with new ideas. For instance, from them, as this would mean God prowess, and valor of the Nephilim that inbreeding is something that few have specifically took action to prevent any allowed them to be distinguished. There considered as a possible explanation of more Nephilim being produced. is no mention of them looking different the existence of the classic Neanderthal In conclusion, although Klenck from the non-Nephilim. Klenck does not type. Perhaps the Neanderthals looked is arguing a model that is somewhat make the assertion that they appeared similar to one another because they were internally consistent and incorporates different in physical form (he certainly is very closely related. In fact, the most wide-ranging ideas, from explanations making that case throughout the article, recent genetic data, surprisingly, says of Neanderthal man to the demise of however), yet the biblical text says noth- exactly that (Reich et al., 2010). From the dinosaurs, I believe he has created ing about their appearance, only their the data we have today, it seems Nean- more theological and scientific problems behavior (note: I agree with Klenck that derthals were closer to each other than than he has solved. He is not the first the Nephilim were not “giants”). individuals within any modern popula- to discover many of these problems. In his detailed citations of the evo- tion are to one another. This is despite In particular, I would encourage him lutionary studies that claim modern re- the fact that the Neanderthal individuals to jettison the evolutionary dating mains in very “old” strata, the material is sampled in this study covered a huge scheme, even in a compressed format. mostly fragmentary (making discrimina- geographic area (Spain to Russia and Naturalism was invented as a way to tion among the various species of Homo south from there). He can be forgiven explain the world without God, and we difficult), the sources are older, and the this lapse, however, for it was published creationists should start our analyses conclusions of the sources are as much after his submission to the CRSQ was from first principles. This means we driven by the contemporaneous trends accepted. It seems that a single, closely cannot use naturalistic conclusions as a in paleoanthropology as anything else. related tribe or family unit, who had backbone for our work but must do the Later, he encourages YECs to “begin the ability, and took the opportunity, hard work of starting from a blank slate osteological comparisons on all remains to have children with modern-looking and build up our ideas from scratch. If attributed to H. habilis, H. rudolphensis, people, spread out across a significant he did this, I believe he would be able and H. ergaster” to see if any of these geographic area. We call them Neander- to stop struggling in his attempt to wed belong to H. sapiens sapiens. But why thals. When could this have happened if such dissimilar ideas as young-earth cre- stop there? Why not throw out all of the not immediately after the Flood? ationism and the order of events derived evolutionary data and start from scratch, Finally, his warning about tinkering from naturalistic assumptions. There is analyzing each fossil independently? with genetic cloning of Neanderthal tremendous uncertainty and ambiguity This would be a huge and impossible DNA seems a bit stretched. Even if we within the biblical passages discussed undertaking, but it illustrates an impor- had the ability to take highly degraded above. It would behoove us to avoid tant point. We cannot trust the source DNA and clone an individual from it making unwarranted, unsupported, data. Yet, Klenck takes much (but not (we don’t), there is no evidence that and sweeping claims with downstream all) of that source data and simply rolls the genes of Neanderthals or any other theological and scientific ramifications. it into his theory. non-modern people (e.g., Homo erectus) I am not going to argue whether or carry “Nephilim” spirits or would cause Acknowledgments: I would like to not the traits found among non-moderns overly aggressive tendencies (enhanced thank Mike Oard and Carl Froede for are within the range of modern man robustness and strength are possibilities). reviewing early drafts of this article, John (they are not, for the most part, but If this were true, and since we apparently Reed for suggestions about Buckland’s there are exceptions, and intermediate share genes with Neanderthals, it might error, Gary Bates and Lita Cosner for skeletons have been found). As he points be possible for a Nephilim to spontane- helpful discussions on the Nephilim, out, various authors have suggested diet, ously arise from the normal process of and Creation Ministries International exercise, longevity, and disease to explain sexual recombination! Also, would God for allowing me use some work hours the classic Neanderthal features. I am allow man to resurrect that which was to prepare this review. not ready to jettison this early work as destroyed in the Flood? Peter and Jude quickly as Klenck, however, as I be- may have been referring to the angelic References lieve these authors have made several fathers of the Nephilim, saying their CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quarterly significant contributions. This is a very souls are held in chains until judgment Bates, G. 2010. Alien Intrusion: Revised and complicated subject, we have a lot of (1 Pet. 3:19–20; 2 Pet. 2:4–5; Jude 6–7). Expanded. Creation Book Publishers, 68 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Powder Springs, GA (see also http:// Mullikin, M. Slatkin, R. Nielsen, J. T. Maricic, J.M. Good, T. Marques- creation.com/images/pdfs/articles/sons- Kelso, M. Lachmann, D. Reich, and S. Bonet, C. Alkan, F. Qiaomei, S. Mal- of-god-genesis-6.pdf). Pääbo. 2010. A draft sequence of the Ne- lick, H. Li; M. Meyer, E.E. Eichler, M. Brown, F., Driver, S.R., and Briggs, C.A. andertal genome. Science 328:710–722 Stoneking. 2010. Genetic history of an 2000. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs (see also Carter, R. 2010. Neandertal archaic hominin group from Denisova Hebrew and English Lexicon (electronic genome like ours, http://creation.com/ Cave in Siberia. Nature 468:1053–1060 edition). Logos Research Systems, Oak neandertal-genome-like-ours). (see also Wieland C., and R. Carter. Harbor, WA Klenck, J.D. 2010a. A Genesis model for the 2011. Not the Flintstones—it’s the Den- Green, R.E., J. Krause, A.W. Briggs, T. Mar- origin, variation, and continuation of isovans, http://creation.com/denisovan). icic, U. Stenzel, M. Kircher, N. Patter- human populations. CRSQ 47:112–137. Taylor, C.V. 1994. Who wrote Genesis? son, H. Li, W. Zhai, M.H.-Y. Fritz, N.F. Klenck, J.D. 2010b. Genesis and the demise Are the toledoth colophons? Journal of Hansen, E.Y. Durand, A.-S. Malaspinas, of the dinosaurs. CRSQ 46:159–166. Creation 8(2):204–211. J.D. Jensen, T. Marques-Bonet, C. Al- Klenck, J.D. 2010c. The region of Eden: Walker, T.B. 1994. A biblical geologic mod- kan, K. Prüfer, M. Meyer, H.A. Burbano, analysis and debate. CRSQ 46:93–108. el. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings J.M. Good, R. Schultz, A. Aximu-Petri, Mortenson, T. 2004. The creation of York- of the Third International Conference A. Butthof, B. Höber, B. Höffner, M. shire: a review of A Geological Survey on Creationism (technical symposium Siegemund, A. Weihmann, C. Nus- of the Yorkshire Coast (1828) by George sessions), pp. 581–592. Creation Science baum, E.S. Lander, C. Russ, N. Novod, Young (1777–1848). Journal of Creation Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. J. Affourtit, M. Egholm, C. Verna, P. 18(3):48–51 (also http://creation.com/ Rudan, D. Brajkovic, Ž. Kucan, I. Gušic, glenn-morton-whos-misrepresenting- Robert W. Carter V.B. Doronichev, L.V. Golovanova, C. history). c/o Creation Ministries Lalueza-Fox, M. de la Rasilla, J. Fortea, Reich, D., R.E. Green, M. Kircher, J. Krause, International A. Rosas, R.W. Schmitz, P.L.F. Johnson, N. Patterson, E.Y. Durand, B. Viola, [email protected] E.E. Eichler, D. Falush, E.Birney, J.C. A.W. Briggs, U. Stenzel, P.L.F. Johnson,

Genesis Model and the Necessity for Post-Morris Paradigms

It is necessary that creationists establish that encompass the entirety of relevant Genetic Considerations multiple explanatory models that ac- Biblical references and a greater range Although I personally appreciate many commodate the full range of Biblical of observations. of Carter’s studies, in this matter we dis- references and examined phenomena. Genesis model represents one of agree. Despite that Carter’s educational I believe two factors have hampered several alternate models incorporating background is genetics, his theories creation science’s development: (1) an a wider range of Biblical references conflict with observed data. Carter overzealous devotion to the theories of and observed facts (Klenck, 2010a, has enthusiastically promoted the no- Henry Morris and (2) the elevation of 2010b). Here, Biblical sources suggest tions that Neanderthals and modern the latter’s views to the position of Bib- an explanatory model for the origin, humans are alike, that they lived in lical inerrancy and theological dogma. variation, and continuation of human Europe after the Flood, and that they As the founder of modern creationism, populations (see Table 1). Conversely, were descendants of Noah and his fam- Morris deserves our respect and appre- Carter advocates that all humans (e.g., ily. Given these assumptions, the DNA ciation; however, he was not an apostle, Neanderthals and modern humans) are of Neanderthals and modern humans and many of his views were mistaken, post-Flood populations formed around should be identical or at least possess reflected his educational bias in North the time of the tower of Babel; that no greater differences than modern hu- American hydrology, and do not cor- we should ignore observed data; and man races today (e.g., between Asians respond to the breadth of Scripture Morris’s position that most geological and Caucasians). Also, there should or observed phenomena. Creationists strata were formed during the Flood. be so much overlap in archaeological need to develop post-Morris paradigms I disagree. deposits that Neanderthals should be Volume 48, Summer 2011 69

Table 1: Genesis Model for the origin, variation, and continuation of human populations (from Genesis 1–10).

Biblical Periods Populations Linnaean Other & Events in Genesis Classifications Nomenclature

Modern times. Non-Nephilim Anatomically Homo sapiens sapiens After the Flood (Genesis 8:15 Descendants of Adam. modern humans. and afterwards).

Flood of Noah (Genesis 7:10-8:14). Homo sapiens sapiens, H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, “...and also afterward” (Genesis 6:4). Non-Nephilim H. ergaster, H. erectus, Anatomically modern Descendants of Adam; H. antecessor, H. heidel- humans and Nephilim; and offspring bergensis, H. neandertha- non-modern humans. “...in those days” (Genesis 6:4). of both. lensis, H. floresiensis, and potentially other “...when men began to multiply on the populations. face of the earth” (Genesis 6:1).

Soon after expulsion from Eden Descendants of Adam. (Genesis 3-4). Anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens Sixth Day of Creation Week humans. Adam and Eve. (Genesis 1-2).

found in present-day burials and exist lifestyle and culture of Neanderthals 2000; Orlando et al., 2006; Briggs et al., in contemporary human populations. differed greatly from modern human 2009; Gibbons, 2010). Indeed, the lack Recently, Carter has claimed, albeit in assemblages (see references in Klenck, of genetic evidence for Neanderthal an- a lay-oriented article, that Neanderthals 2010a, 2010b). cestry in modern human populations has and modern humans were so close that Paleoanthropological data also sup- prompted hypotheses that Neanderthal Neanderthals could represent relatives ports the Genesis model with its hypoth- and modern human sperm and eggs attending “your next family reunion” esis that all non-modern humans (e.g., could not align or that chemical signals (Carter, 2010). No data support Carter’s Neanderthals), which are correlated from the egg did not permit penetration assertions (Krings et al., 1997; Serre et with the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1–4, of cell walls, reducing the possibility of al., 2004; Currat and Excoffier, 2004; went extinct before or during the Pleisto- interbreeding between these two popu- Ovchinnikov et al., 2000, Orlando et al., cene / Holocene transition. In addition, lations (Olson, 2002, pp.73–83; Currat 2006; Gibbons, 2010). data suggests that only modern humans and Excoffier, 2004). As Hooper (2011) notes with exces- (or H. sapiens sapiens) survived into the Since sending the Genesis model sive zeal, Carter’s arguments are flawed, Holocene epoch and that the genetic to CRSQ, two studies have suggested as Neanderthals do not exist today, all heritage of non-modern groups, which that 1–4% of the genomes of select non-modern humans died before the I associate with Nephilim populations, modern human populations—persons Holocene (today’s environment, which is negligible (Hedges et al., 1992; Long, from France, Han China, and Papua allegedly began around 11,500 kya), and 1993; Maddison et al., 1992; Templeton, New Guinea—might be derived from Neanderthals are very different from 1992; Kahn and Gibbons, 1997; Krings Neanderthals, and non-modern humans modern humans morphologically and et al., 1997; Lindahl, 1997; Ward and from Denisova Cave, Siberia, possibly genetically. Furthermore, the preferred Stringer, 1997; Ovchinnikov et al., contributed 4–6% of their genetic mate- 70 Creation Research Society Quarterly rial to only the genomes of present-day in today’s populations originated from while only Melanesians were affected Melanesians living in New Guinea pre-Holocene modern human popula- by a small proportion of Denisovan (Green et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2010). tions (Green et al., 2010, pp. 721–722; genetic ancestry. Curiously, the Bible Research teams are cautious about Reich et al., 2010). This data supports suggests African populations were de- these findings for three reasons. First, the Genesis model with its notion that scendants from Noah’s son, Ham, while DNA contamination might affect the Nephilim, or non-modern genetic ma- European and possibly Asian cultures results. Green et al. (2010, p. 712) notes terial, in modern human populations derived from another son, Japheth that estimated DNA contamination from would be negligible. (Gen. 10:1–20). modern human males in the data to “be Despite Carter’s prior statements, If the aforementioned data is cor- about 0.60% with an upper 95% bound I was still surprised that in his letter rect and replicated by future studies, I of 1.53%.” Although this effect is minor, he insinuated that Noah possessed tentatively suggest that Japheth’s wife the alleged impact of Neanderthal DNA Nephilim ancestry. To review, the possessed a trace of Nephilim ancestry. in modern humans is also small (1–4%), Bible mentions variation in pre-Flood This negligible trace could have “surfed” prompting added caution. Second, the human groups as denoted by Nephilim to other populations if they intermarried acquisition of Neanderthal traits in and non-Nephilim populations (Gen. with Japheth’s descendants later in his- modern human genomes is based on an 6:1–4). This inclusion is followed by tory. This heritage was so slight that it did evolutionary premise of closer ancestral a verse stating that Noah was perfect not cause the ire of the Almighty, prevent affinity between Neanderthals and in his generations and preceded by a her marriage to Japheth, prohibit her chimpanzees (verses modern humans). genealogy from Adam to Noah with no entry into the ark, or enable the concen- With this premise, the study filtered out hint of Nephilim ancestry (Gen. 5:1–32; tration of non-modern human genes or genomic regions that “might be dupli- 6:9). Furthermore, Genesis is specific traits in post-Flood human populations. cated in either humans or chimpanzees that only Noah, his three sons, and their Furthermore, the dispersive effects at based on an inferred genome sequence wives survived the Flood (Gen. 6:18; 7:7, Babel would have further prevented the of a common ancestor” that could also 13; 8:18; 9:18–19). That Carter attempts concentration of this heritage in modern affect their findings (Green et al., 2010, to “explain” the Hebraic verbiage to sup- human groups (Gen. 11:1–9). Still, the p. 712). In addition, the research teams port his notion that Noah had Nephilim negligible amount of non-modern hu- caution those reading too much into ancestry is philologically, contextually, man ancestry from Japheth’s wife would the percentages of alleged Neanderthal and theologically untenable. continue in the genomes of her descen- ancestry in select non-African popula- With regard to the new studies, ques- dants and might correlate with data from tions. They note that very few incidents tions remain as to how any Nephilim or recent studies by Green et al. (2010) and of interbreeding between non-modern non-modern human genetic material Reich et al. (2010). Again, future studies and modern humans before the Holo- (even a negligible amount) survived will serve to replicate or discount these cene could cause Neanderthal genetic into the Holocene and how this relates initial findings and conclusions. information to disperse or “surf” through to Biblical references in Genesis. Al- modern human groups causing “height- though Genesis strongly suggests that Angelic Heritage? ened” frequencies of Neanderthal alleles Noah was unaffected by Nephilim an- When I submitted my Genesis model in contemporary human populations. To cestry, there is no mention of the names paper to CRSQ in December 2009, reiterate, even though only select human or heritage of the wives of Noah and his there were no studies that confirmed groups outside of Africa might show a sons. As such, it is possible that one of the existence of DNA material that very small proportion of Neanderthal these wives possessed a negligible trace could derive from angelic sources from DNA (1–4%), these percentages could of non-modern human genetic mate- the Nephilim abomination. This posi- be overemphasized by the effects of rial. I am intrigued by the new data. tion was based on Biblical claims from the dispersion of these alleles through The studies from Green et al. (2010) Genesis 6:1–4, morphological traits, and modern human populations (Green et and Reich et al. (2010) suggest that sub- cultural differences between modern al., 2010). Saharan and West African populations and non-modern human populations. As opposed to Carter’s statement of do not have traces of either Neanderthal The inference of the Genesis model is Neanderthals appearing at a family re- or Denisovan ancestry. Conversely, that angelic genetic material would be union, both studies suggest that the role these studies show that non-African found in Nephilim or populations with played by genetic ancestry from non- persons from France, China, and New Nephilim ancestry such as Neanderthals modern humans is very “minor” and that Guinea were influenced by a minute and other non-modern human groups the “vast majority” of genetic variants proportion of Neanderthal heritage, but not in apes. In modern human popu- Volume 48, Summer 2011 71 lations during the Holocene, Nephilim — Gene THADA, associates with the notion that morphological charac- genetic material would be negligible. diabetes and energy metabo- teristics in non-modern humans (e.g., Extant studies merely confirmed that lism. Neanderthals) primarily originated from there were differences between modern — Gene DYRK1A, associates with a preexisting source outside processes of human and Neanderthal genomes and Down syndrome. selection and mutation. that it was unlikely that Neanderthal — Gene NRG3, associates with In this milieu of observations, I genes affected modern human popula- schizophrenia. continue to suggest that genetic materi- tions (Hedges et al., 1992; Long, 1993; — Gene CADPS2, associates with als found in Neanderthals and other Maddison et al., 1992; Templeton, 1992; social interactions, communica- non-modern human specimens (and Kahn and Gibbons, 1997; Krings et al., tion, and cognition. not found in modern humans or apes) 1997; Lindahl, 1997; Ward and Stringer, — Gene AUTS2, associates with and the genomic differences between 1997; Ovchinnikov et al., 2000; Orlando autism. non-modern and modern humans are et al., 2006; Briggs et al., 2009). — Gene RUNX2, associates with partially derived from angelic sources The recent studies show many cleidocranial dysplasia (caus- from the Nephilim abomination (Gen. genetic traits specific to Neanderthals ing delayed closure in cra- 6:1–4). The latter would reflect preex- not found in modern human genomes nial sutures), morphology of isting genetic instructions that would (or apes): the frontal bone, hypoplastic or have caused Nephilim morphological • A large number (111) of Neander- aplastic clavicles, bell-shaped rib characteristics exhibited in non-modern thal-specific segmental duplications cages, and dental abnormalities humans, which differentiate from non- do not overlap with human segmen- (Green et al., 2010, p. 717). Nephilim groups that are typified by tal duplications (Green et al., 2010, In addition, changes in RUNX2 modern human populations and their p. 715). impact other morphological differences morphological traits. The effects of • Neanderthal-specific duplications in the upper body and cranium, caus- preexisting genetic instructions from were found with “no evidence of ing more distinctions between modern angelic sources, provided the primary duplication among humans or any humans and Neanderthals (Green et cause for the morphological differences other primate” and “none contained al., 2010). Differences in the closing of in Nephilim (non-modern humans) known genes” (Green et al., 2010, cranial sutures, degree of frontal bossing compared to non-Nephilim (modern pp. 715–716). or protrusion, clavicle morphology, and humans) groups. Subsequently, these • Estimated copy number for Ne- the shape of the rib cages are all traits Nephilim morphological traits were af- anderthal genes were compared that differentiate Neanderthals (and fected by biogeographical factors, activ- with those from modern humans other non-modern humans such as H. ity levels, disease, aging, diet, and other showing 43 genes of more than 5 erectus) from modern humans. variables that caused further minor mor- copies—67% being increased in In addition, more than 500 and 400 phological variations within Nephilim / Neanderthals and not in modern genes control jaw and tooth development non-modern human populations. humans. Most of these genes are “of and the formation of the ear and tem- Currently, a well-funded cross sec- an unknown function” (Green et al., poral/mandibular region, respectively tion of pharmaceutical interests, evolu- 2010, p. 716). (Cheverud et al., 2008; Wagner, 2008). tionary research groups, and geneticists • Gene PRR20 (NM_198441) shows Moeller (personal communications on are combining their efforts to obtain an estimated 68 copies in Nean- January 22, February 6, and February 7, Neanderthal DNA to form a “group” of derthals verses only 16 in modern 2011) prudently suggests that morpho- living neo-Neanderthals (Zorich, 2010). humans. These genes encode a logical differences between modern and They are keenly aware of the genetic dif- proline-rich protein “of unknown non-modern human populations, which ferences between modern humans and function” (Green et al., 2010, p. are pronounced and wide-ranging, are Neanderthals, and their efforts toward 717). more likely a reflection of preexisting the rebirth of neo-Neanderthals are • After comparing a stretch of 293 genetic instructions rather than a result publicized and celebrated. consecutive single-nucleotide poly- of selection and mutation. Also, genes morphism (SNP) positions between ascribed to the neuro-cranial-dental Against Radicalism modern humans and Neanderthals, complex act as an extreme stabilizing Some creationists attempt to dismiss the results showed noteworthy differ- factor limiting modifications caused by all radiometric dates, archaeological ences in certain genes from the two mutations (Pavlicev et al., 2010; Marroig reports, paleontological analyses, and groups: and Cheverud, 2010). This data supports other observations that conflict with 72 Creation Research Society Quarterly their views. For me, Carter’s appeal that haps in an effort to control creationist the dust of the earth, before the advent we should ignore observed data because research and advocate their own ideas. of the Flood (Klenck, 2010c). he labels it “naturalist” seems excessive. Flood geologists argue that the Others are much more vociferous and Necessity for Post-Morris Flood, or ha·mab·bul, is a unique work insist that we should delete paleontologi- Paradigms—Biblical Reasons denoting “cataclysm,” suggesting its pri- cal and archaeological reference points The Hebrew verbiage in Genesis pro- macy in forming most geological layers such as the “Mesozoic” or “Paleolithic” vides clear support that only the ter- on earth. I disagree. The Hebrew term is noted in twelve [לובמה] since these terms, which refer to assem- restrial animals and humans on the ark ha·mab·bul blages of plants, animals, and human survived the Flood (Gen. 7:23; 8:1); all verses from Genesis 6:17 to 11:10. All cultures, are associated with old-earth terrestrial animals and humans outside these references denote the Flood of views and evolutionary research. the ark died (Gen. 6:7, 17; 7:4, 21–23); Noah, and the word mab·bul does not This extreme position seems ill ad- the Flood was worldwide and covered denote a general cataclysm, but spe- vised. The Bible is a wonderful source the earth (Gen. 6:17; 7:4); all the foun- cifically, the Noachian Deluge. Only of explanatory models for the early earth tains of the great deep burst forth (Gen. Psalm 29:10 mentions mab·bul outside and observations in paleontology, geolo- 7:11); the floodgates of the sky were Genesis, but this verse is also tied to the gy, and from other academic disciplines. opened (Gen. 7:11); it rained 40 days same event, as God sits as a king over the Removing words from the research lexi- and 40 nights (Gen. 7:4, 11); the Deluge mab·bul. Also, the mere Biblical men- con or data from our tableau of observa- lasted 371 days (Gen. 7:14; 8:14); and tion of ha·mab·bul in no way affirms that tions hinders communication, degrades the Floodwaters increased and covered this event formed most geological strata. the pace of research, and inhibits our the earth (Gen. 7:17–20, 24). The Bible Second, the breaking up of “all ability to elucidate aspects of God’s also confirms the fountains of the great the fountains of the great deep” or kol מעינת תהום רבה] creation. In addition, many original deep and floodgates of the sky were ma’·ye·not te·hom ra·bah does not affirm the Flood’s formation [כל geological studies were made by those closed (Gen. 8:2); the rain from the who firmly believed in the inerrancy of sky was restrained (Gen. 8:2); and God of most geological strata. The locales of the Bible. Also, many geological, pale- caused a wind to pass over the earth and volcanoes, springs, tectonic plates or any ontological, and archaeological reports the waters subsided (Gen. 8:1, 11–14). features that represent “the fountains of are mostly recordings of what researchers The Bible does not affirm flood geol- the deep” were separated by consider- have observed (e.g., Winchester, 2002). ogy claims that the Deluge caused most able distances and in no way support the Carter declaration that we should geological layers. This claim is an infer- global crustal fracturing of the entirety be “starting from a blank slate and build ence or a product of eisegesis, where dilu- of earth’s surface. Furthermore, many up our ideas from scratch” also seems vialists have read into the Biblical texts to geologists ascribe pronounced tectonic ill advised. His appeal to ignore all data support their interpretation of geological activity and volcanism to the Cenozoic prompts the question: What data are we phenomena (Price, 1923; Whitcomb and Era, which most diluvial geologists assert to follow—just materials from Carter’s Morris, 1961; Morris, 1976). is after the Flood. Even during the Ce- theories? Carter’s appeal to ignore all The direct curse of a serpent is not nozoic, evidence for volcanism, tectonic data of the past and start from a “blank an “argument from silence” but firmly activity, and the formation of springs slate” is highly questionable. The attested to in Scripture (Gen. 3:14). That does not cover the earth as these features pronouncement seems also inconsis- this curse would have applied to all ser- are separated by notable distances. tent, as Carter references studies from pents is strongly suggested in that God’s That the “waters prevailed,” or gav·ru and covered,” or“ ,[גברו המים] evolutionary geneticists. Perhaps he is post-Fall judgments applied to all men, ha·ma·yim the earth is interpreted ,[ויכסו] suggesting that we adopt the “blank including Adam, and all women, includ- vay·cus·su slate” approach for only conventional ing Eve (Gen. 3:16, 17–19). One animal by flood geologists as the formation of observations in geology, paleontology, group [chayat ha’sadeh] is mentioned most geological layers (Walker, 1994, pp. or archaeology. relating to dragon-like kinds in the early 591–592). However, Genesis specifically ,[מים] Conversely, I believe that we should parts of Genesis and then is not men- mentions that water, or ma·yim diligently study Biblical passages and tioned by God or Noah embarking on covered the earth (Gen. 6:17; 7:6–7, 10, observed data. We should be wary of or debarking off the ark (Gen. 1:24–25; 17–20, 24; 8:1, 3, 5, 7–9, 11, 13; 9:11, evolutionary biases and assumptions. In 2:19–20; 6:13–8:22). This is a powerful 15). There is no scriptural mention of addition, we should treat with caution testament that something happened to geological layers forming or covering those creationists who desire to dismiss these serpents / beasts of the field, which the earth during the Deluge. observed data or widely used terms per- were not crawling on their belly or eating Also, the Hebrew term “and cov- Volume 48, Summer 2011 73

alludes to the sulting in death (apōleto or ἀπώλετο) of derided, associated with works by Cuvier ,[ויכסו] ered,” or va·chus·su wearing of a garment, not the destruc- the pre-Flood world (kosmos or κόσμος) (an old-earth creationist) and Buckland tion of pre-Flood geological stratigraphy with water (udati or ὕδατι) that had been (an agnostic), or dismissively regarded as or formation of most geological layers as flooded (kataklustheis or κατακλυσθεὶς). a “mistake” or a “danger” (using Carter’s asserted by flood geologists (Whitcomb Far from supporting that all geological remarks). and Morris, 1961; Walker, 1994, pp. layers were formed by the Flood, this Most Biblically based creationists 591–592). The same verb for covered passage states a Flood caused death in would readily agree that all animal and used in the Flood, in Genesis 7:19–20, the pre-Flood world. This correlation human life was created less than ten is the same verb used when Japheth and between the Flood and human and thousand years ago and that all humans Shem covered Noah’s nakedness (Gen. animal deaths is readily attested in other and terrestrial animals (living at the time 9:23) or when Rebecca covered her face aforementioned Scriptures but in no way of the event) died in a global Flood, with when she first saw Isaac (Gen. 24:65). affirms the formation of most geological the exception of those on the ark (Gen. This covering of the earth by water was strata during the Deluge. 1–10). However, there are deep divisions then removed by God using “a wind” Also, there is no scriptural justifica- in the creationist community concern- (e.g., Gen. 8:1; Ps. 104:6–9), which tion to support the claims that the Flood ing the main premise of Morris’s Flood again conflicts with Morris’s notion destroyed the entire surface of the pre- geology—that the one-year Deluge that the Flood formed most geological Flood earth and that there is absolutely caused all geological stratigraphy and stratigraphy. no geographical continuity before and completely destroyed any continuity Another argument flood geolo- after the Deluge (Price, 1923; Whit- between the pre-Flood and post-Flood gists employ: they equate God’s “I will comb and Morris, 1961; Morris, 1976). earth. Sadly, while creationists publicly and “am It seems odd that Moses, the probable lament the “slaughter” of their dissenting [אמחה] destroy” or em·cheh as support author of Genesis, would attach the views by evolutionists, followers of Henry [משחיתם] ”destroying them for the formation of most geological name “Perat” to two waterways, before Morris are engaging in similar conduct strata during this event (Gen. 6:7, 13, and after the Flood, in Genesis 2:14 within creation science. His advocates 17; 7:4, 23; Price, 1923; Whitcomb and and 15:18, which had no geographical attempt to silence those who disagree Morris, 1961; Morris, 1976). However, association. On theological grounds it with the tenets of flood geology (or these verses do not assert the destruction seems suspect that this author of the iner- their own studies), castigate competing (or formation) of most geological layers rant Word of God would apply the name ideas at conferences, and some refuse but firmly state that all terrestrial life was “Perat” or “Hiddekel” to rivers, existing to publish analyses that proffer differ- destroyed: “all flesh wherein is the breath before and after the Flood, which had ent creationist paradigms based on the of life” (Gen. 6:17) or “every living thing nothing to do with each other. Especially range of Biblical passages and observed that moved on the earth perished” (Gen. noteworthy is that Genesis associates phenomena. 7:21). To reiterate, the destruction and three rivers from the pre-Flood Garden I believe the views of Price (1923) blotting out indicates the destruction of to three post-Flood locales: the land of and Morris (1976) are passé, while alter- all terrestrial life—not the destruction of Havilah, the land of Cush, and the city nate views by Watts (1984) and Gentet pre-Flood geological strata or the forma- of Asshur. These correlations provide (2000) are increasingly relevant. Below tion of most geological strata. overt and direct Biblical support for geo- are observations that conform to the These associations between the graphical continuity before and after the academic consensus in geology, paleon- Flood and the destruction of human Deluge (Gen. 2:10–14; Klenck, 2010d). tology, and other disciples. First, there and animal life continue in the New are no associations between dinosaur Testament. Jesus mentions the Flood Necessity for and human remains in paleontological destroying pre-Flood populations eating Post-Morris Paradigms— or archaeological contexts. There are and drinking (Matt. 24:39; Luke 17:27). Observational Reasons no faunal remains that evidence large Peter connects the Flood to the destruc- I disagree with Carter’s comments and populations of dinosaurs survived the tion of human life (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. premise regarding the primacy of Mor- Flood or associated with humans. Most 2:5). Flood geologists attempt to employ ris’s flood geology theory. For me and a iconography suggesting the presence 2 Peter 3:6 to justify the Flood’s forma- growing number of other creationists, of dinosaurs in post-Flood contexts tion of geological strata (Price, 1923; Morris’s theories have approached the comprises at best mistakes and at worst Whitcomb and Morris, 1961; Morris, semblance of a sect, where Biblical hoaxes. Lower layers exhibit certain 1976). However, the direct translation verses and observations that run contrary animals and plants that are regularly of this verse associates a destruction re- to the claims of the initiates are ignored, found associated with each other, clus- 74 Creation Research Society Quarterly tered together in geographical locales prominent architecture, which appear luvial cause for all geological features in throughout the globe, and encompassed suddenly, fully formed, from cultural short debates, while practicing geologists by ancient geographical barriers such antecedents that are hundreds of miles would be encumbered having to explain as early oceans, mountains, swamps, away. These cultures were able to farm features that delineated multiple layers and deserts. the fertile soil from newly formed and with different plants and animals. Multiple living surfaces exhibiting globally deposited layers of silt-sand Morris’s followers also insist that dinosaur or dinosaur-like fossils are loess and aeolian (wind-borne) deposits there can be no evidence for tremen- evident in lower strata superimposed that covered the earth at the onset of the dous geological deposits before the by layers exhibiting many mammal spe- Holocene, our present environment. Flood. This position is untenable. Aus- cies. These dinosaur and dinosaur-like These populations near Ararat divided tin (1986) and Berthault (1994) have animals, which are prevalent in lower into archaeological cultures in Anatolia shown that modern events, from the strata, are absent in upper strata and are that increasingly displayed advances in eruption of Mount Saint Helens to the not evident today. Strata with dinosaur agriculture and animal domestication. River Seine overflowing its banks, can and dinosaur-like fossils are arguably These populations then abandoned quickly establish multimeter deposits all related to local or (at most) regional many sites in Anatolia and the Levant with microstratigraphy. Why then do events causing their deposition. Lower while dramatic increases occurred in flood geologists insist that there were layers exhibit superimposed stratigraphy areas further south between the Tigris no local disasters that deposited signifi- of living surfaces with different types of and Euphrates rivers. cant strata after the Fall and before the plants and animals and numerous lay- All of these observed phenomena Flood? To reiterate, in today’s environ- ers with cracked, dried earth. As plants associate with the breadth of references ment we witness tsunamis, volcanoes, would not grow and dried earth would in the Bible. Yet, Morris’s followers insist earthquakes, rivers overflowing their not exist during the Noachian Deluge, that correlations between these observed banks, and the draining of inland lakes the main premise of flood geology that phenomenon and Biblical passages are and seas. All these events have occurred all strata were formed during the one- unacceptable since these data oppose after God removed “the curse of the year Flood conflicts with observed data. Morris’s premise that only the Flood earth for Adam’s sake” immediately Upper layers (with mammal kinds), formed most geological stratigraphy. after the Flood (Gen. 8:21). However, before strata associated with our cur- The views of Morris and his subse- in lower geological strata it should rent environment (the Holocene), quent followers are heavily influenced surprise no one that we witness evi- are associated with horrific and global by their academic and geographical dence for similar phenomena. Studies tectonic, volcanic, and perhaps bolide biases. Morris was a hydrologist. Is it from geologists, paleontologists, and activity. These upper layers attest to the any wonder that he believed that water archaeologists provide evidence for formation of modern mountain ranges, impacted all strata? Most flood geologists volcanoes, earthquakes, rivers overflow- dramatic increases in sea levels, and the are from North America and Austra- ing their banks, draining of inland seas, establishment of large lakes and seas. lia—regions that comprised the largest tsunamis, and other events in early lay- Also, the last layers before our modern populations of dinosaur or dinosaur-like ers—similar to today’s events. environment exhibit biased destruction animals and the greatest evidence for a Sadly, claims that pre-Flood proof most animals in the Americas and rich diet of regional destructions includ- cesses formed geological layers, which Australasia (as opposed to the greater ing bolide impacts, volcanism, and the are supported by all conventional geo- survival of animals from Eurasia and draining of large lakes. Not surprisingly, logical studies, are castigated by Mor- Africa), the extinction of all non-modern their tendency is to interpret all geologi- ris’s followers. The latter insist that all humans, and the dramatic decrease of cal strata in light of Australian and North geological observations from lower layers modern human populations or H. sa- American contexts, especially the Grand were caused only by the Flood. This piens sapiens. These last levels, before Canyon, instead of looking farther afield demand is made in spite of Biblical ref- our current environment, fully exhibit a where there are different stratigraphical erences stating that the pre-Flood earth cacophony of death: oceanic kinds and profiles and formation processes. Lastly, was in the midst of God’s curse (Gen. terrestrial animals are mixed together in there is the admission that flood geology 3:17; 8:21) and the similarities between a gruesome porridge such as in “Florida is a partial product of an early marketing the ancient pre-Flood world and the hash.” campaign entailing the K.I.S.S. prin- present environ (Eccles. 1:9–11; Matt. The earliest archaeological sites ciple (keep it simple, stupid), enabling 24:37). With these Biblical references, around Mount Ararat represent vil- individuals without backgrounds in it again seems odd that flood geologists lages evidencing craft specialization and science to more efficiently declare a di- deny that contemporary events, which Volume 48, Summer 2011 75

form today’s geological features and Gentet, R. 2000. The CCC model and its Long, J.C. 1993. Human molecular phylo- microstratigraphy, did not occur in the geologic implications. CRSQ 37:10–21 genetics. Annual Review of Anthropology pre-Flood earth in the milieu of God’s Gibbons, A. 2010. Close encounters of the 22:251–272. curse for Adam’s sake (Gen. 3:17; 8:21). prehistoric kind. Science 328:680–684. Lubenow, M.L. 2004. Bones of Contention: A I believe creation science is ap- Green, R.E., A.S. Malaspinas, J. Krause, Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. proaching a floruit as we incorporate for- A.W. Briggs, P.L.F. Johnson, C. Uhler, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI. mer works using the research database at and M. Meyer. 2008. A complete Nean- Maddison, D.R., M. Ruvolo, and D.L. Swof- www.creationeducation.org and engage dertal mitochondrial genome sequence ford. 1992. Geographic origins of hu- in robust discussions concerning Biblical determined by high-throughput sequenc- man mitochondrial DNA: phylogenetic exegesis and observed data through the ing. Cell 134:416–426. evidence from control region sequences. Creation Research Society and other Green, R.E., J. Krause, A.W. Briggs, M. Sten- Systematic Biology 41:111–124. venues. It is time that creationists estab- zel, M. Kircher, N. Patterson, H. Li, et al. Marroig G., and J.M. Cheverud. 2010. Size lish post-Morris paradigms incorporating 2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal as a line of least resistance II: direct selec- the breadth of Biblical references and genome. Science 328:710–722. tion on size or correlated response due observed phenomena. Hedges, S.B., S. Kumar, K. Tamura, and to constraints? Evolution 64:1470–1488. M. Stoneking. 1992. Human origins Morris, H.M. 1976. The Genesis Record: A and analysis of mitochondrial DNA Scientific and Devotional Commentary References sequences. Science 255:737–739. on the Book of Beginnings. Baker Book Austin, S.A. 1986. Mount St. Helens and Hooper, J. 2011. An excellent and frightening House, Grand Rapids, MI. Catastrophism, Impact No. 157. Institute article. CRSQ 47:244–245. Olson, S. 2002. Mapping Human History: for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. Kahn, P., and A. Gibbons. 1997. DNA from Genes, Race, and our Common Origins. Berthault, G. 1994. Experiments in stratifica- an extinct human. Science 277:176–178. Houghton Mifflin Company, New tion. In R.E. Walsh (editor), Proceedings Klein, R.G. 1999. The Human Career: Hu- York, NY. of the Third International Conference man Biological and Cultural Origins, Orlando, L., P. Darlu, M. Toussaint, D. on Creationism, pp. 103–110. Creation 2nd Edition. University of Chicago Press, Bonjean, M. Otte, and C. Hanni. 2006. Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. Chicago, IL. Revisiting Neandertal diversity with a Briggs, A.W., J.M. Good, R.E. Green, J. Klenck, J.D. 2010a. The Genesis Model for 100,000 year old mtDNA sequence. Krause, T. Maricic, U. Stenzel, C. the Origin, Variation, and Continua- Current Biology 16(11):400–402. Lalueza-Fox, P. Rudan, D. Brajkovic, tion of Human Populations. S.R. Press, Ovchinnikov, I.V., A. Gotherstrom, G.P. Z. Kucan, I. Gusic, R. Schmitz, V.B. Washington D.C. Romanova, V.M. Karitonov, K. Liden, Doronichev, L.V. Golovanova, M. de la Klenck, J.D. 2010b. A Genesis model for W. Goodwin. 2000. Molecular analysis Rasilla, J. Fortea, A. Rosas, and S. Paabo. the origin, variation, and continuation of of Neanderthal DNA from the northern 2009. Targeted retrieval and analysis of human populations. CRSQ 47:111–137. Caucasus. Nature 404(3):490–493. five Neandertal mtDNA genomes. Sci- Klenck, J.D. 2010c. Genesis: Ancient Taxono- Pavlicev, M., A. Le Rouzic, J.M. Cheverud, ence 325, 318–321. mies and the Demise of the Dinosaurs. G.P. Wagner, and T.F. Hansen. 2010. Carter, R.W. 2010. Neandertal genome like S.R. Press, Washington D.C. Directionality of epistasis in a mu- ours: there may be Neanderthals at your Klenck, J.D. 2010d. The Region of Eden rine intercross population. Genetics next family reunion! http://creation.com/ and the Gardens of God. S.R. Press, 185(4):1489–505. neandertal-genome-like-ours (accessed Washington D.C. Price, G.M. 1923. The New Geology. Pacific April 2, 2011). Krings, M., A. Stone, R.W. Schmitz, H. Press, Mountain View, CA. Cheverud J.M., R. Hager, C.C. Roseman, Krainitski, M Stoneking, and S. Paabo. Reich, D., R.E. Green, M. Kircher, J. Krause, G.L. Fawcett, B. Wang, and J.B. Wolf. 1997. Neanderthal DNA sequences N. Patterson, E.Y. Durand, B. Viola, 2008. Genomic imprinting effects on and the origin of modern humans. Cell A.W. Briggs, U. Stenzel, and P.L.F. John- adult body composition in mice. Proceed- 90:19–30. son. 2010. Genetic history of an archaic ings of the National Academy of Science Kuniholm, P.I., and M.W. Newton. 2003. hominin group from Denisova Cave in 105:4253–4258. The Early Neolithic in Anatolia. In From Siberia. Nature 468:1053–1060. Currat, M., and L. Excoffier. 2004. Modern Villages to Cities: Early Villages in the Rudan, I., D. Rudan, H. Campbell, A. humans did not admix with Nean- Near East, pp. 87–90. Arkeoloji Ve Sanat Carothers, A. Wright, N. Smolej- derthals during their range expansion Yayinlari, Istanbul, Turkey. Narancic, B. Janicijevic, L. Jin, R. into Europe. Public Library of Sceince Lindahl, T. 1997. Facts and artifacts of an- Chakraborty, R. Deka, and P. Rudan. (PLoS)—Biology 2(12):e421. cient DNA. Cell 90:1–3. 2003. Inbreeding and risk of late onset 76 Creation Research Society Quarterly

complex disease. Journal of Medical and dental development within a recent Creationism (technical symposium ses- Genetics 40:925–932. British sample and among Neandertals. sions), pp. 581–592). Creation Science Rudan, I., and H. Campbell. 2004. Five In Rousseau, C.J. (editor), Primate Life Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. reasons why inbreeding may have con- History and Evolution, pp. 115–152. Ward, R., and C. Stringer. 1997. A molecular siderable effect on post-reproductive hu- Wiley-Liss, Inc, New York, NY. handle on the Neanderthals. Nature man health. Collegium Antropologicum Stringer, C. 2000. Homo sapiens. In Delson, 388:225–226. 28(2):943–950 E., I. Tattersall, I., J. Van Couvering, Watts, D.C. 1984. Fossils and the Fall. Bibli- Serre, D., A. Langaney, M. Chech, M. and A. Brooks (editors), Encyclopedia cal Creation 7(18):20–21. Teschler-Nicola, M. Paunovic, P. Men- of Human Evolution and Prehistory, Whitcomb, J.C., and H.M. Morris. 1961. necier, M. Hofreiter, G. Possnert, and S. pp. 334–339. Garland Publishing, New The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Re- Paabo. 2004. No evidence of Neander- York, NY. formed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, PA. thal mtDNA contribution to early mod- Templeton, A.R. 1992. Human origins Winchester, S. 2002. The Map That Changed ern humans. Public Library of Sceince and analysis of mitochondrial DNA the World: William Smith and the Birth (PLoS)—Biology 2(3):e57. sequences. Science 255:737. of Modern Geology. Harper, New York, Smith, J.A., A.M.N. Ndoye, K. Geary, M.P. Wagner G.P., J.P. Kenney-Hunt, M. Pav- NY. Lisanti, O. Igoucheva, and R. Daniel. licev, J.R. Peck, D. Waxman, and J.M. Zorich, Z. 2010. Cloning Neanderthals. 2010. A role for the Werner syndrome Cheverud. 2008. Pleiotropic scaling of Archaeology 64(2):34–41. protein in epigenetic inactivation of gene effects and the “cost of complexity.” the pluripotency factor. Aging Cell Nature 452:470–473. Joel D. Klenck 9(4):580–591. Walker, T.B. 1994. A biblical geologic mod- Arlington, VA Stringer, C.B., M.C. Dean, and R.D.Martin. el. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings [email protected] 1990. A comparative study of cranial of the Third International Conference on Volume 48, Summer 2011 77

by Jim Nelson Black The Death of Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Evolution 2010, 171 pages, $17.00.

important earth-age controversy. The called an orrery to the friend, who then Author book also repeats much of the material asks the name of the builder. Newton, Jim Black holds a presented in the 2008 documentary with tongue in cheek, replies that the humanities doctorate and has written Expelled. machine has no builder but somehow several conservative-oriented books Author Black writes some memo- built itself from spare parts, thus showing about troubling educational trends rable statements such as “[Evolution the futility of spontaneous origins and across the U.S. In this compact volume, is] the only gospel allowed on public evolution. Unfortunately, this story is an he summarizes the creation-evolution property” (p. 12). Several pages attack urban legend that author Black presents issue in a popular, devotional style. The evolution, although in an uncomfort- without reference or qualification (No subtitle is “Restoring Faith and Wonder able, “bashing” style. At the same time, author, 2003). in a World of Doubt.” theistic evolutionists including Francis This book may reach an audience All of the included material is “sec- Collins, Michael Behe, and Owen Ging- beyond our usual creationist efforts. It is ondhand,” and references are sketchy. erich are lauded. I do not demean these encouraging to see Zondervan publish a For example, the book begins with a leading scientists, but it is inconsistent to book that questions evolution. An index full description of the designed defense praise them while criticizing the (God- is provided. mechanism of the bombardier beetle. directed) evolution they promote. In the This story is a creationist classic from test there are a few points of confusion No author. 2003. http://goliath.ecnext.com/ writer and speaker Dr. Duane Gish. including the earth’s rotation, revolu- coms2/gi_0199–614347/Who-made-it- However, Duane Gish is not named in tion, and magnetism (pp. 31, 41). The-Isaac.html (as of January 17, 2011). the book. In fact, there is no mention of A conversation is related between creationist groups such as the Creation Isaac Newton and a religious skeptic (pp. Don DeYoung Research Society, or the Flood, which 15–16). In the story, Newton displays [email protected] changed the earth’s topography, or the an intricate model of the solar system 78 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Carving by Wayne Ranney

Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, Evidence, Theories, Grand Canyon National Park, and Mystery AZ, 2005, 160 pages, $15.00.

other by back-cutting into the Plateau scientific Ideas” about the formation of until they joined. Another idea is that Grand Canyon. In this section he men- ancient lakes overflowed their beds and tions an unidentified book published in This very interesting catastrophically cut the Grand Canyon 2003 “documenting a religious interpre- book is written by an evolutionist in a relatively short period of time. Both tation for how the canyon was formed.” and geologist about the formation of the of these ideas have their proponents Apparently he cannot bring himself to most famous of all geological icons, the and opponents, and no idea is without name the 2003 book Grand Canyon, Grand Canyon. The purpose of the book difficulty. All parties agree that the river a Different View by Tom Vail. Ranney is to provide lay readers with an overview was somehow involved in canyon cut- briefly discusses the ideas presented of the evolution of the debate over the ting, but to what extent or at what time within the book and then criticizes it origin of the canyon, mainly as it has is not known. for ignoring evidence regarding “rates played out among geologists during the There is a very helpful summary of change in landscape development” past 150 years. As of yet there is no con- at the end of the book that gives what and for assuming that the Bible must be sensus from the geological community Ranney refers to as the basic “truths” true before coming to the evidence. To about how Grand Canyon formed or on which most geologists agree. One his loss, Ranney overlooks his own pre- how old it is. Ranney summarizes his is struck in particular by the lack of suppositions and discounts the creation own work well when he states, “The evidence of any kind during the period alternative completely. Nevertheless, his Grand Canyon is an enigma, a puzzle, a (on the conventional timescale) from 30 work is a valuable summary of Grand mystery. It is located in an unlikely loca- to 16 million years ago. This is amazing Canyon studies, particularly for those tion and follows a path that is confusing because it is precisely during this period not familiar with the technical jargon of at best. Try as we might, we may never that geologists believe the actual process geology, and the book can be profitably find a definitive answer to its origin and started that led to Grand Canyon. In used by creationists. I recommend it to we may never know everything about other words, at the very point where anyone desiring to study the history, it” (p. 25). evidence is most needed it is lacking. science, and people surrounding this In spite of this apparent lack of an- The author writes in an engaging amazing landmark, Grand Canyon. swers, the book demonstrates that scien- and relatively easy-to-understand man- The book contains an excellent sum- tists have come to agreement on several ner that most people can grasp, although mary of the evolutionary interpretation points, including a previously northwest- there is some technical terminology, of the canyon, a helpful glossary, scien- flowing river system (exactly opposite the particularly in the chapter on landscape tific and popular-level bibliographies current flow of the Colorado River) and evolution of the Grand Canyon region. concerning the origin of the Canyon, an extremely tectonically active region However, most readers would be able to and an index. It features many colorful that has experienced uplifts, faults, and understand and enjoy the better part of pictures, as well as helpful diagrams and mountains both rising and falling. These the book’s contents, and the historical drawings that illustrate various points of and many other complicated factors information on past geologists and their canyon formation and the geology of the have kept geologists guessing about the thoughts on Grand Canyon are well Grand Canyon region. exact time and way the canyon formed. worth studying. One of the most popular theories at pres- Ranney provides a section on pages Jeremy Maurer ent is that two rivers, one on either side 84–85 that discusses “Legends and Non- [email protected] of the Colorado Plateau, joined each Volume 48, Summer 2011 79

by Sal Giardina In the Beginning… New Creation Ministries, Mesa, God or Dirt AZ, 2010, 196 pages, $13.00.

foreword. The book is an overview of The book includes illustrations, origins and is aimed toward seekers who charts, tables, and small photos. Four are unfamiliar with the important issues illustrations are shown for the decreasing involved. longevity of Old Testament patriarchs As an engineer, Sal provides helpful (pp. 152–154). The gospel is clearly and thorough discussion of the first and spelled out in the final chapters. The Author Salvatore Giardina is a mechani- second laws of thermodynamics. Both book certainly will be helpful to those cal engineer with an advanced degree involve energy, and both raise important making an initial exploration of the in geology. He is a longtime member challenges to evolution theory. Other creation worldview. The book offers no of the Creation Research Society and topics briefly discussed include living subject index. the Phoenix-based Arizona Origin Sci- fossils, radioisotope decay, the RATE ence Association. The president of this project, the gap theory, irreducible Don DeYoung group, Joseph Kezele, M.D., wrote the complexity, and probability arguments. [email protected] 80 Creation Research Society Quarterly

by Andrew A. Snelling Earth’s Institute for Creation Research, Catastrophic Past Dallas, TX, 2009, 1102 pages in two volumes, $60.00.

community (pp. 477–486). Perhaps the record pertaining to this era” (p. 679). main value of this section it to give the The Flood was responsible for the late reader an extended treatment on what Precambrian (Ediacara fauna) through the modern geological community be- to the Cretacous/Teritary boundary (pp. This book is an update of the classic lieves and teaches. 751–761). This includes trilobites, fish, The Genesis Flood (1961) by John C. Next is a very important section amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, some Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. Many in which the author documents many mammals, and birds. The rest of the fos- observers attribute The Genesis Flood as evidences of catastrophism within the sil record (most mammals, megafauna, greatly contributing to the launching geologic record (pp. 493–610). These etc.) Snelling places in post-Flood re- of the modern creation-science move- evidences include rapid, widespread gional catastrophes. ment. Andrew Snelling largely follows water-deposited strata in the Grand Two important things stand out in the format of the older book in this Canyon and elsewhere, fossil graveyards, Snelling’s evaluation. First, he mounts two-volume treatise. He begins with and mass extinctions. He discusses a vigorous defense of the stratigraphic the scriptural implications of Creation types of fossilization and how fossils are rock/fossil record (pp. 299–364) but and the Noachian Deluge similar to formed, showing that fossils by their very is careful to jettison the uniformitar- the first section of the 1961 book. He nature require rapid burial. This section ian deep-time baggage. “It is crucial to delves into the various aspects of the certainly presents some of the strongest recognize that the order of occurrence Flood (duration, depth, extent) and the geological evidence for a worldwide and of fossils in the rock record is based on ark (need, size, capacity) and answers greatly destructive Flood. real and verifiable observational field various objections raised by skeptics. He Snelling’s creation model for Earth data and does not depend in any way brings together cogent arguments from history follows the familiar Creation, on the evolutionary interpretation which others and refers to works that cover the pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood eras. the conventional geological community subject at hand in greater depth such The Creation era includes the seven imposes on the fossil record. Although as John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A days of God’s creation in Genesis 1–2. the rock sequences and the order of oc- Feasibility Study (1996). Snelling establishes among other things currence of the fossils in them clearly Snelling then develops a framework the basement rock layers. He believes imply a relative time sequence, this rec- for Biblical Geology that covers the the stromalites (produced by cyanobac- ognition in no way requires one to accept events of the Creation Week, the Fall, teria) were the first fossils. He does not the uniformitarian geological timescale the Antediluvian period, the Flood, and see evidence for any significant (i.e., of billions of years” (p. 347). This makes post-Flood eras (pp.185–292). He re- fossil-producing) catastrophes during Snelling controversial with some of his turns to this topic in greater detail in the the antediluvian time. “Nevertheless, colleagues within the creation science second volume (pp. 613–793). Snelling we cannot be dogmatic about geologic community. Second, he is a prime ad- then contrasts the Biblical framework activity in the pre-Flood world on a lo- vocate of the catastrophic plate tectonics with the modern geological synthesis cal scale, except to infer from the geo- (CPT) model (pp. 365–415, 683–706). (pp. 295–417). Modern geology is domi- logic record that any such activity had Indeed, he is one of the originators of nated by uniformitarian principles, but to be mild in its effects, otherwise there the CPT model in 1994. This book is Snelling is careful to point out that epi- would have been some destruction of published by ICR rather than by a third sodes of catastrophism are now accepted larger multi-cellular organisms, which party publisher, and the strong CPT by many in the conventional geological would thus be found in the geologic presentation would seem to be a shift Volume 48, Summer 2011 81 in ICR’s position. As late as 1996 ICR to say he is just compiling information of-the-art laboratories with multi-billion president emeritus, the late Henry M. from others. He is a brilliant scientist in dollar budgets to elucidate the workings Morris, and current president John D. his own right and brings to bear his own of the earth and life on it, grounded in Morris, took a much more cautious ap- considerable knowledge and expertise the belief that there was no Creator who proach to plate tectonics. in geological areas. For the most part, instantly brought the earth and life on The author relies on the work of fel- Snelling’s prose is very readable and he it into existence, but instead all that low creation science researchers such is an excellent science writer. He makes was needed was time plus chance!” (p. as John Baumgarder, Larry Vardiman, strenuous efforts to cover all the bases, 1035). He then extends an invitation Michael Oard, Kurt Wise, Steve Austin, answering questions and objections in a to upcoming and future generations. “I and T. C. Wood in establishing a post- civil and comprehensible manner. This would therefore unashamedly issue a Flood model when discussing the Ice reviewer occasionally found himself get- challenge, particularly to young readers Age, regional catastrophism, biological ting bogged down in highly specialized who are in the formative stage of their diversity, and dispersal (pp. 751–793). geological terminology and concepts careers, to heed God’s call, and use the Snelling devotes a book section to an suited more to serious students of earth intellectual gifts and abilities He has extensive critique of radioactive dating science. For the most part, Snelling does given you, to train in whatever fields of methods (pp. 797–864). He documents not engage in direct creation science science or intellectual endeavor He may from the conventional scientific com- community debate. One exception is his lead you into, so as to join the growing munity the pitfalls of each dating system. critique of the pre-Flood vapor canopy ranks of professional creation scientists He also uses creation science research theory (pp. 662–667) proposed by Whit- and Flood geologists” (pp. 1035–1036). and the findings of the RATE project comb and Morris and later expanded on Snelling then goes on to give an evan- (2000, 2005) of which he was one of by Jody Dillow. gelistic appeal for those non-Christian the primary researchers to bolster his Snelling ends his book with two readers to receive Christ as their Lord case for a young Earth. This is surely a invitations. He is realistic regarding and Savior. difference between The Genesis Flood the massiveness of the task to reorient This book is a valuable resource and the present volume. Snelling has current science to Biblically consistent for much of current creation thinking access to not only newer findings from ends. “The ranks of full-time and part- regarding earth history and can be the secular scientific camp but also over time creation scientists and Flood geolo- profitable for any serious reader and forty-five years of good creation research gists are meager and thin, and therefore especially those considering a career in to draw upon. brittle. Furthermore, the modern scien- the sciences. While Snelling uses the research tific enterprise has mushroomed, with and findings of others in the creation veritably millions of professional scien- Don Ensign science movement, it would be unfair tists around the globe working in state- [email protected] 82 Creation Research Society Quarterly

by Edward Boudreaux and Eric Baxter

God Created the Earth: Central Ohio Creation Genesis of Creation Chemistry Research Association, Canal Winchester, OH, 94 pages, $20.00.

This book explores the notion (called Laboratory in the Ukraine (pp. 37–38). standard billion-year half-lives of these aquo-nucleosynthesis) that all elements This mechanism contradicts the stan- radiometric isotopes, as currently ob- originated from water; accelerated dard evolution model that requires bil- served, are reduced to half-lives of only radioactive decay theory also is treated. lions of years to produce nucleosynthesis minutes under the intense conditions Part one of the book covers in detail from hydrogen. of the plasma. the chemical mechanisms that could I felt part 2 was the more valuable As the plasma cools, the temperature produce all known chemical elements contribution of the book. This sec- is reduced from ten billion to ten mil- from the hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) tion postulates that the same plasma lion degrees within some 200 minutes atoms in water. It is significant that water conditions that produce the chemical and the half-lives then return to the is the first material substance cited in the elements greatly influence the decay billion-year values seen today. Complete Biblical account of Creation. rates of the radioactive elements. The details as to how the thermal and mag- The authors document that colli- primary effects caused by accelerating netic effects of plasma cause the greatly sions between H and O nuclei within a radioactive decay arise from the plasma’s accelerated radioactive decay rates are ten-billion-degree plasma state promote intense magnetic field and temperature. provided in the text. A mechanism for fusion of the O nuclei, producing the Under normal conditions neither heat rapid cooling via thermal conduction is nuclei of other atoms. The authors then nor magnetic fields have a significant provided as well. determine that under these conditions effect on decay rates, but under extreme All of the results strongly support the the newly produced nuclei will fuse with plasma conditions this is not a valid Biblical time frame for earth’s creation. more O nuclei to produce additional conclusion. Six radioisotopes were se- I support consideration of this book atomic nuclei until all elements, includ- lected to evaluate as example cases to because I believe that this model, while ing the radioactive species, are produced document the authors’ theory. These controversial, needs careful evaluation. within a period of less than three days. elements were: U-238, U-235, Th-232, This mechanism is supported by Sm-147, Rb-87, and K-40. The first four Jerry Bergman the experimental work completed at are alpha emitters and the last two beta [email protected] the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research emitters. It is shown in detail that the Volume 48, Summer 2011 83

by Edward Boudreaux and Eric Baxter

God Created the Earth: Central Ohio Creation Genesis of Creation Chemistry Research Association, Canal Winchester, OH, 94 pages, $20.00.

Author Edward Boudreaux holds a the H and O atoms with a resulting tion of the assumed extreme initial heat Ph.D. chemistry degree from Tulane rapid nucleosynthesis buildup of all the energy. The authors continue to work on University, New Orleans. He retired after other elements in the periodic table. such details of their origin model. Refer- 29 years on the faculty at the University One might consider that the solar core is ences are included but no book index. of New Orleans and continues creation estimated to be 15 million degrees, thou- Although the book effort is appreci- research. Coauthor Eric Baxter holds sands of times “cooler” than the author’s ated, one must wonder about the moti- a Masters degree in theoretical physics assumed initial temperature of matter. vation, the need for “a valid scientific from the University of Texas, Austin. Several pages are given to numeric pa- model accounting for the origin of the The book discusses an unusual sce- rameters for isotope formation based on chemical elements” for a young earth nario regarding origins in a young-age the authors’ model. Third, the extreme and universe (p. 5). Why is there a cur- context. First, all universe matter begins temperatures are said also to allow for rent trend in creation science to attempt as water molecules; that is, hydrogen rapid nuclear decay and buildup of de- scientific explanations for the details of and oxygen atoms. The authors claim to cay products on a timescale of just days. the supernatural Creation Week? Is this derive this view from Genesis 1:1–3 (pp. This work does not fully address the not a fundamental and logical conflict? 5, 7). Second, an initial plasma tempera- total picture of element development ture of 34 billion degrees is proposed to throughout the universe, the observed Don DeYoung have caused fusion collisions between ratios of atomic isotopes, or the dissipa- [email protected]

84 Creation Research Society Quarterly

The Lost World of Genesis One: by John Walton Ancient Cosmology InterVarsity Press, Downers and the Grove, 2009, 192 pages, $16.00. Origins Debate

material or life. Usefulness or functional- World science as Walton as- ity of existing materials was everything. sumes (p. 61)? Walton suggests a new interpretive • Why does Walton take both translation of Genesis 1:1: “In the ini- the days of Genesis 1 and also tial period, God created by assigning our first parents, Adam and Author Walton functions throughout the heavens and Eve, as literal, when the entire spent 20 years on the faculty of the earth, and this is how he did it” (p. Genesis Creation account is Moody Bible Institute before joining 46). And when was the initial creation? reinterpreted figuratively as a Wheaton College in 2001 as professor of Walton has no idea and can find no temple text (p. 91)? Is this an Old Testament. In this book he develops scriptural statement or position regard- accommodation to students the theory that Genesis 1 has nothing ing creation details or the age of the earth (and parents) who favor a literal to do with the origin of the earth or (pp. 95, 169). Nevertheless, the book six-day Creation? cosmos. Instead, Creation Week details supports long ages of prehistory and is • Dr. Walton suggests that dino- describe specific functions assigned to receptive to the big bang and theistic saurs lived in a “prefunctional preexisting components of creation. evolution (pp. 98, 131, 137). Thus, it is cosmos” and there were also Walton interprets Genesis 1 as a temple no surprise that Walton’s “temple text” prehuman hominids (p. 169). dedication ceremony, the temple being theory for Genesis is endorsed by leading This is a rather bizarre assump- the entire earth. theistic evolutionists Bruce Waltke, Da- tion of early experiments by In Walton’s view, when God says, vis Young, Francis Collins, and Tremper God in making and eliminating “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), light is Longman III (Back cover). creatures complete with imper- not created since it is already present. Author Walton’s novel interpretation fections, predation, disease, and Instead, God is defining a period of time, of Genesis 1 raises many serious ques- death, long before the Curse of the day-night cycle (p. 56). Likewise, the tions, including the following. Genesis 3. The book does not mention of animals on Days 5 and 6 does • Does ancient Near Eastern lit- mention the global Genesis not describe their origin but instead is a erature indeed neglect ultimate Flood, which provides a con- reference to their function as a food sup- origins as stated? Does not the sistent explanation of the fossil ply (p.61). The “very good” statement of Babylonian myth Enuma Elish record. Genesis 1: 31 means that everything on describe the creation of gods, the The Lost World of Genesis One is a earth was working as planned (p. 149). earth, and mankind? classroom guide for hundreds of college Other Genesis 1 explanations con- • Since the author’s approach to students, past and present. The obscure tinue, completely separate from ex nihilo Genesis is an unconventional interpretation of the first chapter of Creation. Walton’s rationale is that the theory of interpretation (p. 112), Genesis brings to mind Isaiah 45:19: “I book of Genesis is not primarily written is it not a leap in logic for him to have not spoken in secret.” This passage to us but to Israel (pp. 9, 21). Proper claim that the burden of contrary describes the creation of the heavens meaning of the Scripture, therefore, proof lies with the traditional and the earth. must come by entering the ancient cul- Creation interpretation of Gen- ture. Walton makes the case that ancient esis 1? Don B. DeYoung Near Eastern cultures had no interest • Does the Bible contain sections [email protected] in or conception of ultimate origins of of erroneous, outdated, Old Volume 48, Summer 2011 85

Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will by Ken Ham, Britt Quit Church Beamer, and Todd Hillard and What You Can MasterBooks, Green Forest, AZ, Do to Stop It 2009, 190 pages, $13.00.

Of those surveyed, the majority left is uncertain. It is also important to note church during high school, not college. that many of those who leave eventually There was no significant difference come back, as noted in the book. between those who had attended pub- Based on the results of the survey as One of the issues lic school, Christian school, or were presented in the book, I would submit that relate to working in cre- homeschooled. that perhaps another reason for the ation science is that science itself is About half of those surveyed said trend is that many parents, youth lead- merely one topic of creation research. they do attend church at holidays ers, and pastors have not done a good In fact, creation studies are integrally re- (Christmas and Easter), while nearly job showing how church is relevant lated to the scholarly study of the Bible, 40% planned on returning after they and in fact vital for the everyday life of worldview and apologetics development, had children. believers. In other words, what we learn current environmental issues, Biblical Further results from the study showed on Sunday should affect how we live theology, archeology, and anthropology, that many of the people who left church Monday to Friday. The relationships we just to name a few related disciplines. still value the Bible and believe in its have on Sunday should be maintained This broad field of impact is a result inspiration, but they do not see church and strengthened throughout the week. of the fact that what we believe about as important for their lives right now. During the time of the early church, origins really does make a difference Many did admit to having doubts about believers would often gather or meet one in other areas of study and life. Ken the historicity of some of the Biblical ac- another during the week, and spiritual Ham and Brit Beamer argue in their counts such as Creation and the Flood, growth and fellowship would take place coauthored book that creation studies but more were concerned about alleged at many places and times. This does should also have an impact on how we contradictions in the text and how the not seem to be reflected, by and large, do church. Bible could be trusted if it was written among churches in modern America. The focus of this book is on a study by humans. Ham and Beemer suggest This point is hinted at in the book, done by Britt Beamer, the founder of that many of these trends indicate that though not fully developed: “Certainly, America’s Research Group, on 1,000 churches are not doing enough work in the decrease in the belief in the Bible young people between 20 and 30 years of the areas of apologetics and basic Bibli- and the embarrassing un-biblical atmo- age who have left the church. It has been cal instruction for children and young sphere in many churches did not happen shown before that of young people cur- adults currently in the church. overnight. The spiraling descent can be rently attending evangelical churches, One of the problems in dealing described in one word: irrelevance” fully two thirds will leave at some point with any kind of statistical study is that (p. 68). The authors argue that defend- after they leave home. Though many results must be interpreted. It is obvi- ing and teaching the Bible from the of these will return at some later point, ous from the book that the church does very first verse is necessary to overcome the study was specifically designed to have problems connecting with the the irrelevance that has characterized find out why these young people had young people within it; however, it is much of the church, and what we be- left. There were a number of surprising not as clear exactly what the problem lieve must be reflected daily in how we results obtained by the study, including is or how it has happened. Lack of solid live. Certainly, if young people do not the following. teaching and apologetics has certainly see how the spiritual life of the church Overall, those young people who had played a role, but whether or not this is is to be lived out in their everyday lives, attended Sunday school were more likely to blame for the widespread movement they may not see the need for church to leave church than those who had not. of young adults away from the church attendance at all. 86 Creation Research Society Quarterly

One further point that the authors Word of God, while providing truth for of the “20-somethings” that leave the make deserves special attention. They understanding Creation and origins, is church actually end up returning and reference a study done by the Willow still the catalyst for change in our per- living productive lives for God and what Creek Church showing that personal sonal lives as well as the world at large. caused them to return. I recommend time in God’s Word is the biggest and This is the most important point to be this book to anyone interested in current most important indicator of spiritual taken from this book. trends among Christian youth as well as growth. In other words, participating in The book is well written and concise those in church leadership. church activities, though beneficial in and contains an appendix with an abbre- many ways, does not automatically lead viated form of the survey given, as well as Jeremy Maurer to a closer walk with God. Instead, time several appendices of resources. It does [email protected] spent meditating on the Bible and in not contain an index, which would have prayer combined with church fellowship been a helpful addition. A possibility for is the best way to grow spiritually. The future research and study is how many

by Donald R. Wilson Because I Think, American Book Publishing, I Believe Salt Lake City, 2010, 212 pages, $20.00.

position. The purpose of this book “is cism, historic slave trade, witch-hunting, to declare the logic of a belief in God crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and logi- and the Christian faith and to point out cal fallacies such as “irrelevant thesis” some of the logical difficulties of trying (pp. 190-192). This book should be a Author Donald Wilson piloted luxury to avoid such a belief ” (p. 8). The book help and encouragement to many read- corporate jets worldwide for decades. He presents a crystal-clear picture of Chris- ers. No book index is provided. has published popular-level articles on tian faith while confronting naturalism flight and also on family values. His con- graciously yet confidently. Don B. DeYoung tacts include many worldviews, and Don Don’s interest in history and logic is [email protected] eventually adopted a strong creationist evident in his discussion of geocentri- Volume 48, Summer 2011 87

by Fazale Rana Creating Life Baker Publishing Group, in the Lab Grand Rapids, 2011, 238 pages, $11.72.

yeast) into Mycoplasma capricolum. In International Society for the Study of some instances (p. 44), the transplanted Origin of Life. genome took over, transforming M. The second group of efforts includes capricolum into M. mycodes. From these simulations of chemical evolution by successes, Venter hopes to produce what Jack Szostak and others. Szostak states As a biochemist, I he will call Mycoplasma laboratorium, (2009, p.54), “I is virtually impossible to find Fazale Rana’s book an adequate a completely new synthetic organism. imagine how a cell’s machines, which and moderately technical description This has not to date been accomplished, are mostly protein-based catalysts called of the efforts in synthetic biology and but even if it were, there would exist enzymes, could have formed spontane- certain evolutionary speculations about vast differences between creation of life ously as life first arose.” However, he how life got going on primitive earth. by divine command and the human ignored his intellectual instincts and A better title for the book might have reassembling of genetic material into somehow has what he considers a plau- been Disassembling and Reassembling cells made by life and with the essential sible scenario, which is “in principle” Bacteria in the Lab, since the scientific assistance of enzymes (ribozymes and physically possible. achievements discussed by Rana are other enzymes). In other words, Venter To make formation of nucleotides really about transplanting genetic infor- could not and did not do his experiments possible, the primitive atmosphere mation (DNA) from one bacterium to without enzymes, cell walls, intelligent includes hydrogen cyanide, acetylene, another. The related topic is the conjec- design, and intensive copying of in vivo cyanoacetylene, and formaldehyde, ture on how life, according to evolution, processes. By no means has he or will which together can chemically form might have arisen by random chemical he or others produce a living organism 2-amino-oxazole, then arabino-oxazo- events. Rana (p. 195) states that scientists from scratch or from the chemicals line, finally combining with a source are attempting to “re-create” life in the hypothesized to be present on primitive of soluble phosphates to make nucleo- lab. The two major approaches to inves- earth. I would consider successful heart tides. Without this bizarre early earth tigating life are the synthetic biology of transplant and artificial heart transplant atmosphere and the fortuitous soluble Craig Venter and the highly speculative operations of greater human achieve- phosphate from a meteorite (Szostak, p. primitive earth chemical evolution of ment than transplanting DNA from one 57), there would be (according to them) Jack Szostak. organism to another. no us. All efforts in this field use only in Craig Venter and his team of bio- Rana’s main thesis in the book is vivo enzymes, other chemicals made by chemists, chemists, microbiologists, and that whatever the accomplishments of living things (biochemicals), and labora- geneticists accomplished the complete Venter, Szostak, Shapiro, Ferris, and tory systems to carry out their research. sequencing of Haemophilus influenzae others, they do it by intelligent design. Rana suggests (p. 82) that Szostak and then competed with the Human In this manner, Rana makes a relatively emulated God’s handiwork rather than Genome Project administrated by understated case for God alone creating making God irrelevant. Francis Collins to sequence the human life. Rana presents himself as a Chris- Synthetic biology and genetic en- genome. The public-funded effort of tian who does not accept the atheistic gineering of microbes have been of the Collins team is credited for first pronouncements of many of the above great benefit to humankind. One such sequencing the human genome. What named scientists. He apparently social- example is the deliberate optimization Venter later did (briefly) was to success- izes with the elites in the origin-of-life of yeast cells to make artemisinin, a natu- fully transplant a biochemically engi- group, presenting papers at and attend- rally occurring alkaloid that kills malaria neered Mycoplasma mycocodes (from ing origin-of-life conferences like the parasites. Plant production and chemi- 88 Creation Research Society Quarterly cal synthesis are much less efficient in a special type of clay as the catalytic Ross and is the vice president of research producing this anti-malarial agent. Mi- surface; others point out that this is im- and apologetics at Reasons to Believe crobes can be engineered to produce C5 possible. At bottom, none of these highly (founded by Hugh Ross). Rana stated to C8 alcohols to supplement gasoline, intelligent scientists want to admit that in speaking of macroevolution (p. 30), obviating the need of corn to produce their scenarios for producing life on “My view is that while organisms can ethanol. The fact that some publically the earth could not have happened. I adapt to changing environments and funded scientists attach an unwarranted wonder if the Venters and Szostaks of other selective pressures, they cannot religiosity to this work does not mean it this world really believe their explana- evolve in dramatic ways.” It is unclear is of no value. Public support specifi- tions of life’s origin, or do they have so how he would relate to persons at the cally to fund atheistic hypotheses on the much at stake in reputations, pride in Discovery Institute, Bio-Logos founded origin of life should be withdrawn on the accomplishment, and grant money that by Francis Collins, or members of the basis of the constitutional prohibition for retracting anything is out of the ques- Creation Research Society. Be that as it the establishment of religion. tion. They have resisted the truth to the may, if you want a detailed and coher- Criticism of the evolution-of-life extent that they are now “futile in their ent explanation of what Venter, Szostak, theories is seen in the internal critiques thinking” (Romans 1:21). Shapiro, Ferrris, and others are doing of research efforts in this narrow field. Fazale Rana has high praises for the now, this book will help in that regard. Leslie Orgel (p. 161) said, “I hope no scientific accomplishments of the origin- creationists are in the audience, but it of-life group and believes that life will Szostak, A. Richardo, 2009. Life on earth. would be a miracle if a strand of RNA be created in the laboratory. However, Scientific American 301(3):54–61. ever appeared on the primitive Earth.” he considers these accomplishments as Some of these investigators favor DNA clear evidence for intelligent design in T. J. Siek first, some RNA first, and some metabo- creation. Rana has written at least one [email protected] lism first (Robert Shapiro). Some favor book with “progressive creationist” Hugh Volume 48, Summer 2011 89

New Theories by John D. Barrow of Everything Oxford University Press, New York, 2008, 260 pages, $11.60.

to play a large role. He addresses both M-theory and the big bang theory with secular and creation origins stories but all its patches, fail to overcome these dismisses them as myths. According to problems. A major problem for the him, their most important quality was mathematics used is to show a local- that they presented the idea of “a place global connection. The scientists must for everything and everything is in its show that the initial conditions they place.” (pp. 4–5). In other words, these assume, which are in the quantum John D. Barrow received his Ph.D. in myths left nothing to chance. The TOE world of probability, can be extended astrophysics from the Magdalen College is based on the same principle that he to the real world of discrete objects in in the University of Oxford, UK in 1977. calls compressibility: Everything can which we live. So far they have not He is an active member of the Big Bang be compressed into one overarching found any unique path because all cosmology establishment with a long equation. Chapter 2, “Laws,” provides the mathematics they have available list of research publications and books a historical overview of the search for do not cover discontinuous functions related to the topic. Barrow is presently that equation. such as broken symmetry successfully. Gresham Professor of Geometry and Di- The main section of the book is de- M-theory is actually five theories with rector of the Millennium Mathematics voted to explaining why the TOE has not different mathematics applied in each Project at Gresham College, London. been found. One major problem scien- one. Barrow also describes how the lack This book updates his first book on the tists have encountered is that the initial of knowledge of initial conditions makes subject, Theories of Everything, pub- conditions of the universe are unknown. it difficult to discover the connection. lished in 1991. In the past 19 years his (I would recommend that they read and He states that the connection “is by no optimism for such a theory of everything understand Genesis 1:2 for the answer.) means inevitable and may require the (TOE) has been tempered by the slow Another problem they face is quantum Universe to have emerged from a rather progress that has been made and the mechanics, where the small particles special primeval state” (pp. 227). It dead ends that have been encountered. and forces do not lend themselves to sounds as if they need a specially created Barrow summarizes his present position be compressed. Positions and velocities universe as designed by the Intelligent in the last paragraph of this book: “There of quantum-sized particles can only be Designer to start their models. is no formula that can deliver all truth, expressed in terms of probabilities. The As this book demonstrates, the quest all harmony, all simplicity. No Theory scientists also discovered that they have for a TOE remains a popular research of Everything can ever provide total to question whether the constants found topic and it will continue to be as long as insight. For, to see through everything, in nature apply equally to objects of there are funding sources for it. Its suc- would leave us seeing nothing at all” stellar and atomic proportions. Recent cessful completion, however, depends (p. 246). TOEs have proposed more than three heavily on solving all the mysteries The book is well organized, with a dimensions of space, but all the con- that the Creator has introduced into preface, table of contents, nine chapters, stants of nature are defined in only three the universe. In my opinion, that level select bibliography for further reading, dimensions. Another problem is broken of knowledge may be beyond human and an index. In chapter 1, “Ultimate symmetry. The underlying problem is capability. Explanation,” Barrow covers the subject that the same cause can have more than of finding an explanation for everything. one result. Scientists find it difficult to Del Dobberpuhl Much of this topic he ascribes first to express this with a single equation. Van Andel theologians and philosophers, but he After addressing these problems Bar- Creation Research Center introduces the subject of this book when, row describes in the final chapter how Chino Valley, AZ in recent times, scientists have begun the most recent and popular theories, 90 Creation Research Society Quarterly

by J. D. Mitchell

The Creation WinePress Publishing, Dialogues Enumclaw, WA, 2010, 136 pages, $16.00.

student with a conservative Christian References worldview who struggles with and finally Baker, Catherine. 2006. The Evolution accommodates evolutionary teaching. Dialogues. American Association for the It is firsthand experience since author Advancement of Science, Washington, Mitchell himself accepted evolution un- D.C. Author Mitchell is a longtime researcher til age 40 (p. 19). Mitchell clearly refutes DeYoung, D. 2006. Pioneer Explorers of and defender of creation science. He the theological compromise promoted in Intelligent Design. BMH Books, Winona holds a B.S. in mechanical engineer- the AAAS book. Lake, IN. ing and an M.S. in biblical studies. J. Included is discussion of logical fal- D. Mitchell directs the Institute for lacies (p. 114), natural history museums Don DeYoung Creation Science in Oregon and also (pp. 75–91), and Grand Canyon flood [email protected] maintains a traveling dinosaur and fossil evidences (p. 96). It is bothersome that museum. Anyone is to be commended evolution is referred to as a fairy tale (pp. who transports such an inventory across 9, 10, 18, 74), a fantasy (pp. 20, 25), and the country to encourage and enlighten garbage (p. 30). Insulting the opposition people with the creation worldview. does not help the creationist effort, even Pictures of the museum displays are on though they do the same to creationists the website creationengineeringcon- daily. Author Mitchell rightly describes cepts.org. the creationist heritage of science but This book is a reaction to the simi- mentions only men. Many science pio- larly named The Evolution Dialogues neers of the female gender also qualify and study guide (Baker, 2006). The (DeYoung, 2006). The book has helpful 2006 volume tells the story of a graduate indexes and endnotes. Volume 48, Summer 2011 91 Instructions to Authors

Submission Appearance Electronic submissions of all manuscripts and graphics are pre- Manuscripts shall be computer-printed or neatly typed. Lines ferred and should be sent to the editor of the Creation Research should be double-spaced, including figure legends, table Society Quarterly in Word, WordPerfect, or Star-Office/Open footnotes, and references. All pages should be sequentially Office (see the inside front cover for address). Printed copies numbered. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publica- also are accepted. If submitting a printed copy, an original plus tion, an electronic version is requested (Word, WordPerfect, two copies of each manuscript should be sent to the editor. The or Star-Office/Open Office), with the graphics in separate manuscript and copies will not be returned to authors unless electronic files. However, if submission of an electronic final a stamped, self-addressed envelope accompanies submission. version is not possible for the author, then a cleanly printed If submitting a manuscript electronically, a printed copy is or typed copy is acceptable. not necessary unless specifically requested by the Quarterly Submitted manuscripts should have the following organi- editor. Manuscripts containing more than 35 pages (double- zational format: spaced and including references, tables, and figure legends) 1. Title page. This page should contain the title of the manu- are discouraged. An author who determines that the topic script, the author’s name, and all relevant contact information cannot be adequately covered within this number of pages is (including mailing address, telephone number, fax number, encouraged to submit separate papers that can be serialized. and e-mail address). If the manuscript is submitted by multiple All submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by two or authors, one author should serve as the corresponding author, more technical referees. However, each section editor of the and this should be noted on the title page. Quarterly has final authority regarding the acceptance of a 2. Abstract page. This is page 1 of the manuscript, and should manuscript for publication. While some manuscripts may be contain the article title at the top, followed by the abstract for accepted with little or no modification, typically editors will the article. Abstracts should be between 100 and 250 words seek specific revisions of the manuscript before acceptance. in length and present an overview of the material discussed in Authors will then be asked to submit revisions based upon the article, including all major conclusions. Use of abbrevia- comments made by the referees. In these instances, authors tions and references in the abstract should be avoided. This are encouraged to submit a detailed letter explaining changes page should also contain at least five key words appropriate made in the revision, and, if necessary, give reasons for not for identifying this article via a computer search. incorporating specific changes suggested by the editor or 3. Introduction. The introduction should provide sufficient reviewer. If an author believes the rejection of a manuscript background information to allow the reader to understand the was not justified, an appeal may be made to the Quarterly relevance and significance of the article for creation science. editor (details of appeal process at the Society’s web site, www. 4. Body of the text. Two types of headings are typically used creationresearch.org). by the CRSQ. A major heading consists of a large font bold Authors who are unsure of proper English usage should print that is centered in column, and is used for each major have their manuscripts checked by someone proficient in the change of focus or topic. A minor heading consists of a regular English language. Also, authors should endeavor to make font bold print that is flush to the left margin, and is used fol- certain the manuscript (particularly the references) conforms lowing a major heading and helps to organize points within to the style and format of the Quarterly. Manuscripts may be each major topic. Do not split words with hyphens, or use all rejected on the basis of poor English or lack of conformity to capital letters for any words. Also, do not use bold type, except the proper format. for headings (italics can be occasionally used to draw distinc- The Quarterly is a journal of original writings, and only tion to specific words). Italics should not be used for foreign under unusual circumstances will previously published mate- words in common usage, e.g., “et al.”, “ibid.”, “ca.” and “ad rial be reprinted. Questions regarding this should be submitted infinitum.” Previously published literature should be cited us- to the Editor ([email protected]) prior to ing the author’s last name(s) and the year of publication (ex. submitting any previously published material. In addition, Smith, 2003; Smith and Jones, 2003). If the citation has more manuscripts submitted to the Quarterly should not be concur- than two authors, only the first author’s name should appear rently submitted to another journal. Violation of this will result (ex. Smith et al., 2003). Contributing authors should examine in immediate rejection of the submitted manuscript. Also, if this issue of the CRSQ or consult the Society’s web site for an author uses copyrighted photographs or other material, a specific examples as well as a more detailed explanation of release from the copyright holder should be submitted. manuscript preparation. Frequently-used terms can be abbrevi- 92 Creation Research Society Quarterly ated by placing abbreviations in parentheses following the first a legend that provides sufficient description to enable the usage of the term in the text, for example, polyacrylamide gel reader to understand the basic concepts of the figure without electrophoresis (PAGE) or catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT). needing to refer to the text. Legends should be on a separate Only the abbreviation need be used afterward. If numerous page from the figure. All figures and drawings should be of abbreviations are used, authors should consider providing a high quality (hand-drawn illustrations and lettering should be list of abbreviations. Also, because of the variable usage of professionally done). Images are to be a minimum resolution of the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution,” authors 300 dpi at 100% size. Patterns, not shading, should be used to should clearly define how they are specifically using these distinguish areas within graphs or other figures. Unacceptable terms. Use of the term “creationism” should be avoided. All illustrations will result in rejection of the manuscript. Authors figures and tables should be cited in the body of the text, and are also strongly encouraged to submit an electronic version be numbered in the sequential order that they appear in the (.cdr, .cpt, .gif, .jpg, and .tif formats) of all figures in individual text (figures and tables are numbered separately with Arabic files that are separate from the electronic file containing the and Roman numerals, respectively). text and tables. 5. Summary. A summary paragraph(s) is often useful for readers. The summary should provide the reader an overview Special Sections of the material just presented, and often helps the reader to Letters to the Editor: summarize the salient points and conclusions the author has Submission of letters regarding topics relevant to the Society made throughout the text. or creation science is encouraged. Submission of letters com- 6. References. Authors should take extra measures to be certain menting upon articles published in the Quarterly will be that all references cited within the text are documented in published two issues after the article’s original publication the reference section. These references should be formatted date. Authors will be given an opportunity for a concurrent in the current CRSQ style. (When the Quarterly appears in response. No further letters referring to a specific Quarterly the references multiple times, then an abbreviation to CRSQ article will be published. Following this period, individuals is acceptable.) The examples below cover the most common who desire to write additional responses/comments (particu- types of references: larly critical comments) regarding a specific Quarterly article Robinson, D.A., and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. A quantitative approach are encouraged to submit their own articles to the Quarterly to baraminology with examples from the catarrhine primates. CRSQ 34:196–208. for review and publication. Lipman, E.A., B. Schuler, O. Bakajin, and W.A. Eaton. 2003. Single-molecule measurement of protein folding kinetics. Sci- Editor’s Forum: ence 301:1233–1235. Occasionally, the editor will invite individuals to submit differ- Margulis, L. 1971a. The origin of plant and animal cells. American ing opinions on specific topics relevant to the Quarterly. Each Scientific 59:230–235. author will have opportunity to present a position paper (2000 Margulis, L. 1971b. Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. words), and one response (1000 words) to the differing position Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of Grasses of the United States. Dover paper. In all matters, the editor will have final and complete Publications, New York, NY. editorial control. Topics for these forums will be solely at the Walker, T.B. 1994. A Biblical geologic model. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), editor’s discretion, but suggestions of topics are welcome. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 581–592. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Book Reviews: 7. Tables. All tables cited in the text should be individually All book reviews should be submitted to the book review edi- placed in numerical order following the reference section, and tor, who will determine the acceptability of each submitted not embedded in the text. Each table should have a header review. Book reviews should be limited to 1000 words. Follow- statement that serves as a title for that table (see a current issue ing the style of reviews printed in this issue, all book reviews of the Quarterly for specific examples). Use tabs, rather than should contain the following information: book title, author, multiple spaces, in aligning columns within a table. Tables publisher, publication date, number of pages, and retail cost. should be composed with 14-point type to insure proper ap- Reviews should endeavor to present the salient points of the pearance in the columns of the CRSQ. book that are relevant to the issues of creation/evolution. Typi- 8. Figures. All figures cited in the text should be individually cally, such points are accompanied by the reviewer’s analysis of placed in numerical order, and placed after the tables. Do the book’s content, clarity, and relevance to the creation issue. not embed figures in the text. Each figure should contain Volume 48, Summer 2011 93

Creation Research Society Membership/Subscription Application and Renewal Form The membership/subscription categories are defined below: 1. Voting Member ��Those having at least an earned master’s degree in a recognized area of science. 2. Sustaining Member ��Those without an advanced degree in science, but who are interested in and support the work of the Society. 3. Student Member ��Those who are enrolled full time in high schools, undergraduate colleges, or postgraduate science programs (e.g., MS, PhD, MD, and DVM). Those holding post-doctoral positions are not eligible. A graduate student with a MS degree may request voting member status while enrolled as a student member. 4. Senior Member ��Voting or sustaining members who are age 65 or older. 5. Life Member ��A special category for voting and sustaining members, entitling them to a lifetime membership in the Society. 6. Subscriber ��Libraries, churches, schools, etc., and individuals who do not subscribe to the Statement of Belief. All members (categories 1–5 above) must subscribe to the Statement of Belief as defined on the next page. Please complete the lower portion of this form and mail it with payment to CRS Membership Secretary, P.O. Box 8263, St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263, or fax for credit card payment to (816) 279-2312. Applications may also be completed online at creationresearch.org. ✁ This is a ❏ new ❏ renewal application for the subscription year beginning Summer ❏ 2011 ❏ ______. (Please type or print legibly.) Name______Address______City______State______Postal/Zip code ______Country______Phone (optional)______Email______Degree______Field______Year granted______Institution______Presently associated with______I have read and subscribe to the CRS Statement of Belief. Signature______For foreign orders, including Canadian, payment must be made in U.S. dollars by a check drawn on a U.S. bank, international money order, or credit card. Please do not send cash. ‡ New PAPERLESS option: You may Indicate applicable category Þ Indicate payment Þ now opt out of receiving paper copies Paper** Canada Other Paper- of the CRS periodicals (CRS Quarterly ❏ Voting ❏ Sustaining USA Mexico countries less‡ and Creation Matters). By choosing this ❏ Regular [per year] ❏ $35 ❏ $53 ❏ $70 ❏ $31 option you may register for access to the ❏ Senior [per year] ❏ $30 ❏ $48 ❏ $65 ❏ $26 Premium Area of the website, where you ❏ Life member ❏ $500 ❏ $500 ❏ $500 ❏ $500 may view or download electronic (PDF) ❏ Student* [one year; multi-year not permitted] ❏ $30 ❏ $48 ❏ $65 ❏ $26 versions of these publications. Of course, ❏ Subscriber [per year] ❏ $38 ❏ $56 ❏ $73 ❏ $34 regular members and subscribers may also * Student members are required to complete the bottom portion of this form. have access to the Premium Area. Only ** Rates for the paper option include postage for First Class Mail International (FCMI), members, however, will access to the which is equivalent to airmail. Surface mail delivery is no longer available. Members Exclusive Area of the website. Member/Subscriber $______per year (multi-year not permitted for students) x _____ years Student Members are required to complete the following: SUBTOTAL $______School or institution now attending______Optional contribution + $______Life membership + $______TOTAL $______Your current student status: ❏ high school; ❏ undergraduate; ❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard ❏ Discover graduate program ❏ MS ❏ PhD; ❏ other ______❏ American Express ❏ Check/money order Year you expect to graduate or complete your degree______Card number______Expiration date (mo/yr)______Major, if college or graduate student______Phone number (______)______Signature______Signature______94 Creation Research Society Quarterly Order Blank for Past Issues Cost of complete volumes (per volume):...... members (all categories) – $18.00 + S/H nonmembers and subscribers (libraries, schools, churches, etc.) – $25.00 + S/H Cost of single issues (per issue):...... members (all categories) – $5.00 + S/H nonmembers and subscribers (libraries, schools, churches, etc.) – $7.00 + S/H

Number Number Reduced price! Volume 1 2 3 4 Volume 1 2 3 4 CRSQ on CD, version 3.0 21     35     Members, $75; 22     36     nonmembers and subscribers, $90. 23     37     24     38     Upgrade: Members, $30; 25     39     nonmembers and subscribers, $45. 26     40     (Prices include postage and handling.) 27     41     Two-set CD contains volumes 1–44         28 42 (through Spring, 2008) of the 29     43     Creation Research Society Quarterly 30     44     31     45     and volumes 1–12 (through 32     46     December, 2007) of Creation Matters 33     47     in PDF format. 34     48 

Volumes 1–20 are available on CD. See “CRSQ on CD” advertisement on right for details. Add 20% for postage (for U.S. orders: min. $5, max. $25; for Canadian orders: min. $10, no max.; for other foreign orders: min. $15, no max.) Total enclosed: $______Make check or money order payable to Creation Research Society. Please do not send cash. For foreign orders, including Canadian, please use a check in U.S. funds drawn on a U.S. bank, an international money order, or a credit card. (Please type or print legibly) Name______Address______City______State______Zip______Country______❏ Visa ❏ MasterCard ❏ Discover ❏ American Express Card number______Expiration date (mo/yr)______Signature______Mail to: Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323, USA Creation Research Society History—The Creation Research Society was organized fund for these purposes are tax deductible. As part of its is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically in 1963, with Dr. Walter E. Lammerts as first president vigorous research and field study programs, the Society and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To and editor of a quarterly publication. Initially started operates The Van Andel Creation Research Center in the student of nature this means that the account of as an informal committee of 10 scientists, it has grown Chino Valley, Arizona. origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple rapidly, evidently filling a need for an association devoted Membership—Voting membership is limited to scien- historical truths. to research and publication in the field of scientific tists who have at least an earned graduate degree in a 2. All basic types of living things, including humans, creation, with a current membership of over 600 voting natural or applied science and subscribe to the State- were made by direct creative acts of God during members (graduate degrees in science) and about 1000 ment of Belief. Sustaining membership is available for the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever non-voting members. The Creation Research Society those who do not meet the academic criterion for voting biological changes have occurred since Creation Week Quarterly is a peer-reviewed technical journal. It has membership, but do subscribe to the Statement of Belief. have accomplished only changes within the original been gradually enlarged and modified, and is currently Statement of Belief—Members of the Creation created kinds. recognized as one of the outstanding publications in the Research Society, which include research scientists 3. The Great Flood described in Genesis, commonly field. In 1996 the CRSQ was joined by the newsletter representing various fields of scientific inquiry, are com- referred to as the Noachian Flood, was a historical event Creation Matters as a source of information of interest mitted to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and worldwide in its extent and effect. to creationists. early history, and thus to a concept of dynamic special 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women Activities—The Society is a research and publication creation (as opposed to evolution) both of the universe of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Sav- society, and also engages in various meetings and and the earth with its complexity of living forms. We ior. The act of the special creation of Adam and Eve as promotional activities. There is no affiliation with any propose to re-evaluate science from this viewpoint, and one man and woman and their subsequent fall into sin other scientific or religious organizations. Its members since 1964 have published a quarterly of research articles is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for conduct research on problems related to its purposes, in this field. All members of the Society subscribe to the all people. Therefore, salvation can come only through and a research fund and research center are maintained following statement of belief: accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. to assist in such projects. Contributions to the research 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it ResourcesCreation Research Society Already Gone Ken Ham & Britt Beemer Regular Price $11 + S/H / Member’s Price $9 + S/H Two-thirds of young people now attending evangelical churches will be gone after they leave home, because they have already left in their hearts. This shocking result comes from an in-depth poll of 1,000 young people aged 20 to 29 who have left the church. This book delves into the reason for this trend, including a high proportion who left because of the influence of evolution and the belief in an old earth.

Already Compromised Ken Ham & Greg Hall Regular Price $14 + S/H / Member’s Price $12 + S/H Finally, a book that statistically documents the state of Christian colleges in regard to the origins issue, as well as biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. The statistics are composed of the interviews of 312 university presidents, academic deans/vice presidents, heads of the science department, and heads of the theology/religion department.

Without Excuse Werner Gitt Regular Price $15 + S/H / Member’s Price $13 + S/H An academically rigorous sequel to Dr. Gitt’s popular In the Beginning was Information. With his co-authors, information scientist Dr Werner Gitt provides an understanding of how all biological information comes from God.

Orders can by placed through Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323-9186 Phone: 1-877-CRS-BOOK (1-877-277-2665); Fax: (928) 636-9921 www.creationresearch.org For credit card payments, (Visa, MasterCard, For U.S. orders, add 20% for S/H (min $5, max $15) Discover, and American Express), For Canadian orders, add 20% for S/H (min. $5, no max.) please include the card number, expiration For foreign orders, add 25% for S/H (min. $15, no max.) date (month/year), and your phone number. Orders must be pre-paid.