Biblical Catastrophism and Modern Science Part II -- By: Henry M. Morris

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 125:498 (Apr 1968)
Article: Biblical Catastrophism and Modern Science Part II
Author: Henry M. Morris


Biblical Catastrophism and Modern Science
Part II

Henry M. Morris

In Peter’s condemnation of the evolutionary and uniformitarian cosmology of latter-day intellectualism, he merely calls attention to the two evidences of creation and the Flood (2 Pet 3:5–6) as adequate refutation of this false philosophy. The evidences for these two events of history are assumed by him to be so clear and their implications so obvious that only “wilful ignorance” would permit men to maintain the evolutionist position. Having previously discussed the subject of creation, we shall now consider the Flood and its implications.

The Failure of Uniformitarianism

The possibility of catastrophism as an explanation of the earth’s geological formations has been arbitrarily rejected by most geologists for well over a hundred years. They have insisted that all the earth’s physiographic and geologic features can be explained on the basis of uniformitarianism—the application of present laws and processes, operating in the same manner and at the same rates as at present, to the understanding of past deposits and activities. This principle obviously implies aeons of geologic time, in order to account for the tremendous extent and depths of the deposits in the earth’s crust.

With the concept of uniform natural law throughout the ages since creation, the Biblical cosmologist has no quarrel. The two laws of thermodynamics in particular, which constitute the basic framework within which all natural processes operate, have undoubtedly been in effect since that time, including the Flood period.

The uniformity of process rates is quite another matter,

however. All natural processes operate within the constraining framework of the two laws, and this means that every process, in addition to being a conservative process, is also fundamentally a decay process. However, the second law has nothing to say about the rate of decay; this depends on the relative influence of the various parameters controlling the process. And since any of these may easily vary in time and space, it is obvious that all process rates are subject to change. Thus no such rate may be used with full confidence as a geochronometer, either qualitatively or quantitatively.

That geological process rates are subject to wide variation—all the way from zero to catastrophic intensities—has in recent years been widely recognized even by historical geologists. The actual formations are often of such character as to preclude explanation by anything other than high intensities of sedimentation, volcanism, crustal movements, and similar geologi...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()