1. Education

Discuss in my forum

Andrew Alden

What Happens When Flood Geologists Practice Geology?

By September 2, 2011

Follow me on:

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

September 5, 2011 at 11:25 am
(1) Ron Toczek says:

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?”

September 5, 2011 at 2:14 pm
(2) Geology Guide says:

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.

September 5, 2011 at 8:52 pm
(3) Barb Wallner says:

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.

September 7, 2011 at 7:51 am
(4) DKeane says:

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.

August 23, 2013 at 1:44 am
(5) zuma says:

The website below shows the discovery of plenty of seashells on mountains top:

http://www.google.com.sg/images?hl=en-SG&q=mountain+top+seashel...

The discovery of seashells on mountains top provides the evidence of the existence of a Great Flood in the past. The absence of sea surrounding each mountain provides the truth that it is irrational to have seashells on mountains top especially they could only be available around the sea. It is also irrational to comment that seashells could climb up the mountains to reach its top. Apparently there should be a Great Flood occurred in the past with great sea waves that had caused that mountains top to bring forth plenty of seashells.

If there were no great flood occurred in the past, why should there be plenty of seashells located on mountains top then?

August 23, 2013 at 2:43 pm
(6) Geology Guide says:

Zuma, why are there so few mountaintops with seashells on them?

Also, that’s not a “website,” it’s a Google image search. It shows images of a book that you would enjoy reading.

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
  1. About.com
  2. Education
  3. Geology

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.