Most
mainstream geologists today probably equate Young Earth Creationism (YEC) with “junk
science,” as opposed to real science, which is supposed to be based on hard
evidence. But the fact of the matter is
that most of Henry M. Morris’ seminal book The
Genesis Flood, which he coauthored with biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb,
is devoted to a discussion of the evidence.
His work should not be simply dismissed by critics; they should refute
it, if they can.
Morris was primarily concerned with
attacking geological Uniformitarianism and building the case for Catastrophism
as an alternative. More specifically, he
advocated “Young Earth” Creationism, contending that most fossiliferous rock
strata can be tied to a single geological event, the world-side deluge recorded in the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Morris’ argument is that Uniformitarianism
cannot explain much of the evidence, which actually points in the direction of
some form of Catastrophism.
How well did Morris establish his
case? Let us look at one particular
piece of evidence, the Lewis Overthrust in Montana, USA and Alberta,
Canada. The Lewis Overthrust in an example
of a formation in which the supposedly older rocks are on the top and the
younger ones on the bottom. Morris cites
this as evidence that the rock strata are out of chronological sequence, thus
disturbing the argument for evolution from the fossil record.
Chief Mountain, Glacier National Park |
The standard explanation for this
formation is that it is an example of an “overthrust,” a case in which a large
wedge of rock was forced up and over an adjacent layer of rock. In this case the rock wedge is several miles
thick and several hundred miles long, and apparently moved nearly 50 miles
eastward. Morris wondered how such a
thing could be possible on this scale.
“It seems almost fantastic to
conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks
really behaving in such a fashion, unless we
are ready to accept catastrophism
of an intensity that makes the Noachian Deluge
seem quiescent by comparison!
Certainly the principle of uniformity is
inadequate to account for them.
Nothing we know of present earth movements –
of rock compressive and
shearing strengths, of the plastic low of rock
materials, or other modern
physical processes – gives any observational
basis for believing that such
things are happening now or ever could have
happened, except under extremely
unusual conditions” (The
Genesis Flood, pp. 180-181).
Morris denied
that the characteristic evidence of a fault thrust were present, and maintained
that the “overthrust” consists of normal bedding layers, laid down in the order
in which they are now found, and thus upsetting the evolutionary timeline.
The anti-Creationist website TalkOrigins has an article entitled “Thrust
faults” in which John G. Solum examines Morris’ argument in detail. In some ways Solum is unfair in his treatment
of Morris, sometimes misrepresenting Morris’ arguments and missing the point
Morris was trying to make. But to his
credit he does interact with the evidence and makes some telling
criticisms. In particular he cites evidence
to show that the Lewis Overthrust does indeed show evidence of being a genuine
fault thrust. He also criticizes Morris
for quoting some of his sources out of context, and notes that Morris
misidentified a lock layer in a photograph in Morris’ book (Figure 17 on page
190). There seems to be little reason to
doubt that it is a genuine overthrust.
Ironically, when Morris how such a
massive overthrust could have occurred, he could have answered his own question. He himself notes at one point that “It is
quite true that the entire area . . . gives much evidence of faulting, folding,
and general tectonic activity . . . Such activity is to be expected in
connection with mountain-uplift processes, whatever the nature or cause of
these processes may be” (p. 185). And
that is, indeed, exactly how most geologists now believe is the case. The Lewis
Overthrust was formed at the same time as the Rocky Mountains, and this, in
turn, was the result of colliding tectonic plates on the west coast of North America.
But in refuting some of Morris’
evidence, Solum ironically reinforced Morris’ central thesis. The overthrust is just a part of a much
larger system – the entire Rocky Mountains.
If it is true, as Morris said of the overthrust itself, that “It seems
almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks really behaving in such a fashion,” how much
more true is it of the entire Rock Mountains?
And if the principle of Uniformity states that “The present is the key to
the past,” and that “Rocks formed long ago at the earth’s surface may be
understood and explained in accordance with physical processes now operating”
(Gilluly, Walter & Woodford, Principles
of Geology, p. 18), then how can we account for something on so large a
scale? As Morris put it, “Nothing we
know of present earth movements . . . gives any observational basis for
believing that such things are happening now.”
“It seems almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of
rocks really behaving in such a fashion unless we are ready to accept
catastrophism” -- a catastrophism that exceeds even Henry Morris’ imagination!
See also:
Morris and Whitcomb Fifty Years Later
Here's the link to Solum's TalkOrigins article : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/
But the fact of the matter is that most of Henry M. Morris’ seminal book The Genesis Flood, which he coauthored with biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb, is devoted to a discussion of the evidence.
ReplyDeleteNo.
Science is not "discussion".
It's about work.
Real work.
As in "rolling up your sleeves, getting your hands dirty, earning that Nobel Prize" work.
If you are getting comfy in your armchair and endlessly looking at other people's work and then going "Hey, what about this" and " I just don't see" and "This looks wierd 'cause.." then you are doing it wrong.
Henry Morris had every opportunity to sweep the field of geology and contribute to science.
He failed.
The man is now very dead and has been for a long time.
His supporters refuse to leave the church basement and get any real work done.
It's all tokenism to fleece the gullible faithful.
In some ways Solum is unfair in his treatment of Morris, sometimes misrepresenting Morris’ arguments and missing the point Morris was trying to make.
Sadly, you treat your readers like children and ask them to just take your word on this without giving them a chance to verify it for themselves.
No direct link, no specific examples, nothing.
“It seems almost fantastic to conceive of such huge areas and masses of rocks really behaving in such a fashion...
Argument from Incredulity.
No matter how "fantastic" Morris personally felt about something, that does not mean anything in the real world.
Did you ever find out for yourself about how Morris thought those holes in the face of the Moon got there?
Look it up. See if you can keep a straight face.
(Seriously, look it up. I'm not kidding.)
Science Works! How do we know the age of the Earth?
Here's the link to the TalkOrigins artlcle: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/.
ReplyDeleteIt could be argued that Morris is doing theoretical science, in much the same way that Einstein did. It is a debate on how to interpret the existing evidence.
One problem inherent in both historical geology and historical biology is that you cannot observe past events directly and cannot repeat them in a laboratory. That means that if science is the careful use of the scientific method to uncover facts, historical geology is not a science. It is basically speculation about what might have happened in the past. The geologist is further hampered by the fact that the surviving physical evidence is likely to be fragmentary and incomplete. It is a little bit like the blind man trying to draw conclusions about the elephant by holding on to its tail.
I am currently reading Earth in Upheaval by Velikovsky. Like Morris, Velikovsky makes some telling criticisms of geological Uniformitarianism. But whereas Morris tries to tie nearly all the geological evidence to a single catastrophe (The Genesis Flood), Velikovsky follows a number of early geologists such as Cuvier in arguing that there were multiple catastrophes. And of course, the key question in Catastrophism is what caused the catastrophes?
I just realized that the link in the comment above doesn't work, so I inserted it at the end of the blog post itself. That one does work.
ReplyDeleteI just realized that the link in the comment above doesn't work, so I inserted it at the end of the blog post itself.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
It could be argued that Morris is doing theoretical science, in much the same way that Einstein did. It is a debate on how to interpret the existing evidence.
No.
Einstein did work.
He didn't sit around in a comfy chair. He didn't write vanity press books to flog to the faithful.
Einstein entered the scientific arena. He sucessfully defended his ideas....amongst other scientists.
That's how he won his Nobel Prize.
They don't give them away for free, you know.
Morris is nothing like him.
That means that if science is the careful use of the scientific method to uncover facts, historical geology is not a science.
No it doesn't. Stop being silly.
The geologist is further hampered by the fact that the surviving physical evidence is likely to be fragmentary and incomplete.
Science is about work. Real work. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
The forensic scientist is further hampered by the fact that the surviving physical evidence is likely to be fragmentary and incomplete.
The airline disaster investigator is further hampered by the fact that the surviving physical evidence is likely to be fragmentary and incomplete.
The archeologist is further hampered by the fact that the surviving physical evidence is likely to be fragmentary and incomplete.
I am currently reading Earth in Upheaval by Velikovsky.
Why? For the comedy value?
Like Morris, Velikovsky makes some telling criticisms of geological Uniformitarianism.
No he didn't.
Velikovsky had every opportunity to sweep the field of geology and cosmology and contribute to science.
He failed.
The man is now very dead and has been for a long time.
Did it ever occur to you to read real books on geology written by mainstream geologists that are not interested in propping up your preconceptions?
Step outside your bubble. Look at how real scientists do their job and why it's so useful and interconnected.
Actually, Velikovsky does have comedy value. Unlike Morris he isn't afraid to use sarcasm to ridicule Uniformitarianism. Here is a particularly delicious example. He describes a cave in Kirkdale in Yorkshire, England which is 80 feet above the valley and contains the bones of elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, and tigers, along with bears wolves and foxes, etc. One might ask how did all of these different kinds of animals wind up being buried together in a cave in northern England? Lyell's explanation was that herds of hippopotami swam northward during the summer along the coasts of the Mediterranean, swimming in the rivers of Spain, France and England, before returning to Africa before the snows set in. Velikovsky tries to imagine the picture: "Hippopotami not only travelled during the summer nights to England and Wales, but also climbed hills to die peacefully among other animals in the caves, and the ice, approaching softly, tenderly spread little pebbles over the travellers resting in peace, and the land with its hills and caverns in a slow lullaby movement sank below the level of the sea and gentle streams caressed the dead bodies and covered them with rosy sand." (Earth in Upheaval, 1973 Abacus Edition, p. 27).
ReplyDeleteOne might ask how did all of these different kinds of animals wind up being buried together in a cave in northern England?
ReplyDeleteSo how do actual scientists answer it?
What is their methodology?
Lyell's explanation was that herds of hippopotami swam northward...
The problem with second-hand paraphrasing is that it's second-hand. Why would you choose to get your information via third parties? Can't you see a problem with that?
It's bad scholarship.
Why do I have to continually remind you to use honest, detailed quotes and give sources? You are not a child. Nor are you writing for children.
Do better, if only for your own self-respect and respect for your readership.
Further, Lyell died in 1875.
Given that it's the 21 Century, why would you not want something just a bit more up-to-date?
You need a better methodology.
Did it ever occur to you to read real books on geology written by mainstream geologists that are not interested in propping up your preconceptions?