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/
