Eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology -- By: John C. Munday, Jr.

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 58:1 (Spring 1996)
Article: Eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology
Author: John C. Munday, Jr.


Eden’s Geography Erodes Flood Geology

John C. Munday Jr.

I. Introduction

Flood geologists claim that all (or nearly all) geologic strata were deposited by Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9) within the past 10, 000 years. The argument which leads them to this belief consists of the following: (1) The Bible should be interpreted literally. (2) According to their literal interpretation, the Bible declares that (a) the cosmos was created less than 10, 000 years ago in 144 hours;1 (b) all major types of biota living or extinct coexisted at the end of the six-day creation; (c) all creature death was initiated by the Fall of man;2 (d) by elimination (the absence of other sufficient causes), Noah’s Flood must have been the cause of the stratigraphic record, including its fossil content. Conventional geologists, however, have found no evidence for a universal flood depositing all strata in a short time within the past 10, 000 years. They assert that there was relatively little geomorphological change over this period.

The debate over Flood geology in its modern form dates from the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris.3 They and other young-earth creationists have vigorously pursued an inquiry into possible details of Flood mechanisms and effects, and have sponsored an active creation science educational agenda.4 Creation science consists more of Flood study than of anything else. In response, conventionally-persuaded geologists, some Christian and others not, have variously criticized (and in some cases ridiculed) the Flood geology position.5

The opposing sides on Flood geology accuse each other of unfounded speculation built on a false paradigm.6 Flood geologist John Morris (son of Henry Morris) has stated that while geological data per se are accepted as fact on both sides, data interpretation varies according to the presuppositions employed. While he allows that the old-earth/evolutionary paradigm can be found to fit the data, he maintains that the young-earth/creationist paradigm fits better.7 Conventional geologists declare that the young-earth/Flood geology position rests directly on unquestioning acceptance of the Bible (in a particular literal interpretation) rather than being generated by scientific data, and hence is not science.

In the Flood geology ...

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