Problems with Interpreting the Flood
While posting on the 7 Days of Creation and Righteousness for the last several years, I have been researching various theories on The Great Flood. However, I have wanted to avoid posting any actual theory on The Flood until my analysis of Genesis 1-6 had played itself out, and I could see exactly how my theories of Geocreationism would weigh in to the argument.
Generally speaking, I never accepted The Flood as a global flood since I was a child. I always knew the scripture was true, and assumed I would eventually understand the evidence for it. I have studied the Creation Science for a recent global flood, and the secular science arguing against no flood at all. Of particular interest to me have been the arguments for a recent localized flood. In my opinion, it is the only option, but is historically a difficult argument to make, as every person advancing a theory has the arguments against the others.
My favorite debate to date remains between Stephen Jones and Glenn Morton. I got a lot of excellent information on the problems with flood theories, including each others(!) from reading those debates in detail. Most theorists get a theory and just write about it, but these gentlemen thought through their positions quite deeply. The one thing that seemed lacking in their debates was a degree of civility. When they were finally done with their public debating, I do not think they ended liking each other much. But, they both have strong faith, strong scientific knowledge, and the depth to which they research make them both beneficial to read.
Needless to say, most of my information is from reading Morton’s and Jones’ writings. Most other writers simply fail to support their theories well enough for me to site them. And so, as you read through my posts on the Flood (which are to come), you will see me citing them more than most others… but it doesn’t mean their writings are the extent of my reading.
One of my rules of thumb when reading between dueling experts is to pay attention to how well each understands the other’s position. While Jones and Morton appear to understand each other pretty well, I wish the same could be said for the more prominent Creation Scientists… they appear to understand modern physics, but not the objections of modern science. I wrote about an example a few years ago (Noah’s Flood - Burrows in the Earth’s Crust). It was the feather that broke the camel’s back for me. As I wrote:
It seems that about 10 years ago, Glenn Morton wrote Burrows cause problems for the Flood. It concluded that the burrows we see fossilized in the earth’s crust could not be explained by the flood. 8 years later, in 2006, John Woodmorappe wrote a paper addressing burrows and the flood, entitled Are soft-sediment trace fossils (ichnofossils) a time problem for the Flood? So, I decided to review both papers and see what conclusions I could come up with for myself.
Without explaining the science behind it, it would seem that burrows need a longer time to form than current flood theories would allow for. Woodmorappe considered it a worthy challenge, and appeared to characterize the main problem fairly. So far so good. But then he started to lose me. As you read through my original post, notice the pattern I describe in the article. It is a typical pattern I frequently encounter from naysayers who have no evidence for their view. They come up with alternative theories that sound reasonable enough, then describe why their theories cannot be proven or dis-proven. Then because their own theories cannot be proven or dis-proven, then neither can the oppositions… because how do you know?
I hate arguments like this, because often the side that they are criticizing has gathered ample evidence and observations of their theory. And accordingly, modern scientists have seen biological creatures create burrows… it is based on that behavior that Morton can explain away the burrows supposedly laid down through the flood sediment. As others who argue like Woodmorappe do, Woodmorappe uses the absence of his theory’s observation as evidence. Because we have not seen gas create burrows that are identical to a mollusk’s (for example), we therefore cannot know which it is! Because we have not observed roots making burrows that are identical to a mollusk’s, we therefore cannot be know which it is! In other words, the only burrows you can know with certainty are the ones that you have observed. The rest can only be determine with luck or scripture! A very common tactic for dismissing evidence. It turns the scientific method on its head, and rather than helping us understand the scriptures better, it forces conformity to a historically uninformed Biblical interpretation of what actually happened behind the words. Don’t misunderstand… the Bible was written with informed consent, written by man, inspired by God to communicate His truth and will. It is our historical interpretation of science and archaeology that I characterize as uninformed.
However, after essentially explaining why you cannot tell whether mollusks actually created the burrows in question, Woodmorappe goes on to explain his theory of how mollusks and other animals could have created burrows within the flood’s hardening sediments. I discussed Woodmorappe’s theory about uneven sedimentary hardening, creating arches of support that prevent crushing of mollusks, long enough for them to create burrows. His theory is genius in that you eventually would see so arches, and so evidence of their presence in the sediment, but for the burrows themselves. Once again, the lack of evidence for his theory, as evidence against modern science. But notice something… if there were such arches, then the burrows themselves would have been confined to them, hence creating a hint of the arch atop the topmost burrows. He does not advance this theory however, presumably because it is not true. He is satisfied that his theory can have no proof, and therefore could be true.
My point is that archaeological evidence for earth’s past is rather complex, and I am convinced that a recent global flood does not have enough phases contained within it to explain things. When I compared Woodmorappe’s theory to Morton’s, I found that Woodmorappe’s theory did not predict the observations that Morton cited; however Morton’s theories predicted quite well the observations that Woodmorappe cited.
I found a similar argument style by Creation Scientists for other topics as well, and cite them in several prior posts. Here are just a few:
- Common Scientific Misunderstandings of Young Earth Creationists
- AnswersInGenesis.com - How Some Creationists Discard Science: Zircons revisited - This one quite detailed, and revisits the original scientific data being criticized. The Christian I criticize uses the exact same methods I describe above.
- “Evidence for Creationâ€Â - The first of several posts reviewing the book “Evidence for Creation”, written to refute modern scientific methods.
In closing, with no credible scientific evidence (to my knowledge) for a recent global flood, I have concluded that the earth is old, that the flood was recent, and was not global. However, this leaves a lot to explain about the scripture. Why does it make it seem the entire earth was deluged by a flood? Why are there physical signs of a world-wide catastrophe? Why is the scripture written as if it should be read literally? Before I start commentating on all that, I will analyze some high level features of the Flood record in scripture and science, and provide guidelines for overall interpretation.