Creationist geologists have falsified their Flood hypothesis after 50 years of research. That's admirable, but they can't bring themselves to admit it. A recent issue of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education has an article that follows 50 years of field research conducted by "Flood geologists," strict young-Earth creationists who seek the signs of Noah's Flood in the geologic record. By practicing real geology and replicating its standard practices on their own, it says, "Flood geologists have carefully eliminated the entire geologic column as preserving any evidence of a worldwide Flood." The article, "The defeat of Flood geology by Flood geology," by paleontologist Phil Senter, has more zingers. Senter notes that while some Flood geologists admit the situation, the majority continue to deny what their research implies, "an example of what I call the gorilla mindset: the attitude that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla." Their search for a "period of worldwide submergence" has come up dry.
More:
When geology was creationist
Weaknesses of "intelligent design"
The biblical World view vs the geological Earth view
Should creationists be ridiculed?
Further resources against creationism
Comments
While the use of the term ‘religious dogma’ may gladden the hearts of atheists it is no more than a belief to some who hold to a fundamentalist view that the Bible is correct in everything it says. There are many religious folk who believe in the flood in the sense that something of a great flood happened in the past but the details are really foggy and became exaggerated. The flood as presented in the Bible is nothing more than a morality tale and therein lies its truth.
Speaking of beliefs can you actually ‘prove’ that the ‘Big Bang’ did occur. Certainly, by assuming it happened, one can come up with reasonable theories on how it might explain what we see in the heavens today. but does that ‘prove’ its reality. How many other explanations may also satisfactorily explain the same phenomena? Again we assume that ‘laws of nature’ exist and are invariant over time. Some scientists have admitted that these laws just might change over time but so slowly that for practicable considerations (over generations of mankind) we may assume invariance. By the way, what can possibly serve to ensure that the ‘laws of nature’ remain invariant? or at least long enough in its present state to ensure our existence? How about a more basic question, “Which came first, reality or human conscience?”
Thanks for your comment, Ron. The points in your first paragraph are perfectly mainstream and have been so, even among geologists, for almost two hundred years. In the case of the young-Earth creationists, however, the truth of a universal Flood is dogma. I use the word carefully because dogma has an antique Catholic tinge, and YEC followers are not Catholics and their authority is scripture itself, not a Vatican establishment. The Flood, more precisely, is an axiom of YEC research. The axioms of science are grounded in logic, geometry and mathematics.
The Big Bang and other large-scale scientific theories are not facts that can be proved. My favorite way of explaining these theories is that the universe behaves exactly as if these theories were true, and we make progress by checking the universe’s behavior against our theories ever more strictly.
Donald, your comment posted while I was writing this. It would be interesting to read more about your last point; do you have a link for us?
Ron Toczek raises some interesting points. One wonders about the value of senseless debate about non-science issues such as the literal interpretation of writings of biblical scripture, and those who do so, or non-biblical writings such as those of religions of eastern religions, or even Koranic writings. Sensible science based discussions of course see no scientific value in verbal debate over six days of creation and a day of rest or the 4.6 billion year history of this world and the 3.5 billion year record of life. Not many rational folks really believe Mohammed went to heaven on the back of a horse or that it is correct to kill folks who doubt if he did. However, it is very foolish and equally disturbing to read Richard Dawkins” assertions of the certainty of “his” materialistic universe, as if his statements are any more valid than the significant questions of the origins of time and space. The very interesting work on the unlikely nature of the evolution of intelligence anywhere in the universe by Bayesian analysis, indicating that the Fermi Paradox is doing much better than the Drake equation, may well be the incentive for a new look at all origins.
Andrew, I am away but will send the actual reference when I get back after labor Day–actually a fascinating paper that does point out that it took intelligence at least 3.5 billion years to appear on Earth, and that it is equally improbable that intelligence (able to contemplate its origins) would just as likely never have appeared appeared. Similarly, “life” itself becomes a very improbable event despite the daunting numbers of orbiting bodies that exist. The universe (or at least our universe) is very likely to be a very lonely place–the deafening silence suggested by Fermi is likely to really reflect reality.
I love when religion and geology meet. The world was created in 6 days – how many million/billion years are in each day. How many years/hundred years did Noah live? Is the Black Sea megaflood another glacial Lake Missoula “dam break”? Studying Native American history brings up a great flood in Wisconsin history – it’s the melting of the glaciers.
Keep up the creationist articles! Way interesting when comparing with geology.
You said “multiple explanations exist for the origin of energy and material in our known universe”. Whilst this is true, a theory that is unknown to us yet, is worth acknowledging but not worth discussing. Until 1960, every geologist believed in an expanding earth theory. Up until 1960, the practise of Geology was based on a false model. Yet they still managed to successfully explore and extract energy and resources using this model.
A scientific theory can be likened to a world record – it is held as “the best explanation” until a superior “explanation or theory” supercedes it. The previous model/ athlete was good, but a better model/athlete will be held far above the prior. We cannot go ahead and illogically ridicule the ‘current world record holder’ on the ‘estimation’ that in the future a new athlete (potentially not even born yet) will beat it and so on, but what does that achieve? Humans have worked with the ‘best model’ practise since before Plato and look how far it has taken us.
The Big Bang Theory seeks to explain THE MAPPED UNIVERSE – we can or should all acknowledge that
A. completely explaining the universe is impossible
B. Again we are working with our ‘best model’. Other models do not account for the measured parameters of expansion, but the Big Bang Theory does. And my friends we cannot ignore the LARGEST OBSERVATION – our galaxy is on a collision course with another and i think that should be observation 1.
It is therefore highly illogical to compare the ‘best theory’ to religion. Why? Lets look at it this way- if we had to place all explanations of our origin in a hierarchy: it would be
1. Theories that incorporate ALL current observations
2. Theories incorporating mathematics, physics and astrophysics, but exclude one or more observations or contradict one or more specific principles and equations.
3. Theories accounting for all observations and equations on earth (excludes astrophysics)
4. As above, but neglect several observations/ equations on earth
5. As in 3, but neglect most observations/ equations on earth
6. An equal category of theories with no observable evidence. Nb: Evidence put forward in this category can be explained using various tried and tested scientific disciplines. Nb2: Conjectural, anecdotal tales are not evidence. Evidence is something that can be repeatedly measured by independant parties. Examples: flying spaghetti monster, sea cucumber gods, Falun Gong, Reincarnation, Christianity. And don’t throw in the argument here that history gives one theory more credence than another, it doesnt. Besides Hinduism would be the clear winner.
So why is everyone comparing category 1 to 6 and calling this a philosophical debate? They are so far apart its crazy! Pointing out flaws like ‘we can never know for sure’ is A. Unresolvable, now or ever and B. A strawman fallacy. I.e acquitting suspect B from a murder case does not incriminate suspect A. Because it could have been suspect C to suspect No. 6 billion. Even if geology is completely disproven on all accounts – It does not and cannot move GOD out of category number 6. The only thing that will do that, is direct measurable evidence of god.
For crying out loud comparing billions of years to ‘gods days’ is nothing more than ‘affirming the consequent’. Just because you say A is B, well nothing – you are just saying A is B and it goes no further.
As Mr. Ron Toczek says it is like the egg and chicken. The reality is a matter of evolution. In my article dated 24.08.2011 in my site: http://www.hamidsadeghipour.ws we see :
Appalachian mountain. In the north of it the mountain looks like a sinking boat lying in one side.
A flood resulting from the turn of the mountain.
Therefore, it seems to me this” Noah’s Flood in the geologic record” happened in several places and different times.
Love the article. In many instance bogus claims use a backdrop of science to give their beliefs more weight than is truly deserved. It is the job of science to evaluate such claims on their merit. Otherwise we end up with religion in our science classrooms.