Book Review (Part 2): Science vs. Religion (Departments)—which is more 'compromised' according to Ken Ham?

In the first post, I examined how Ken Ham and Greg Hall used a methodology similar to KJV Onlyists when interpreting poll results in their book Already Compromised. By arbitrarily defining their own views on creation as the singular, biblical worldview, they managed to transform a poll about personal beliefs into a test. Ken summarized the results thusly (p. 35):

"Overall, we found that only 24 percent of the 312 people surveyed answered every question correctly...and these are the “good guys”!"

Nobody can blame the authors for believing themselves to be in the right, but this attitude shifted the book from an academic discussion about Christian education into a pontifical monologue that precluded critical reflection.

Departmental matchup

Now, I want to consider how the authors compared the science and religion departments from each institution. As an introductory exercise, ask yourself how you might expect the heads of the science and religion departments to answer the same set of questions regarding biblical authority, literalism, and views on creation/Earth history. In which department would you expect to find more biblical literalists? Old-Earth creationists? Inerrantists? Let's take a look.

Biblical Inerrancy

As it turns out, the two departments were on the same page with regard to biblical authority, and a vast majority affirmed the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of scripture. A slightly higher (but not statistically significant) percentage of Religion professors affirmed these three doctrines, to which Ken responded (p. 52, emphasis added):

"As you can see, the responses are fairly close, with the religion departments claiming a slightly higher view of Scripture than the science departments."

I am slightly bothered by the use of the comparative term "higher" in this context. More often than not, it is used pejoratively to speak of those who question modern definitions of inerrancy. The more I have studied the history of this doctrine, the more I have come to think its use is simply polemical—in other words, a method of protecting scripture from modernism and liberalism rather than a scripture-derived doctrine. The result is a number of odd discussions about how many times Jesus cursed the fig tree and cleansed the temple (e.g. here) or which calendar the gospel writers used to chronicle the passion week. In the end, readers miss the grand points of the gospel narratives and only push other believers into liberalism. Regardless of how you feel about the doctrine of inerrancy, Ken's treatment of this section is consistent with my hypothesis concerning his agenda.

How old is the Earth?

When asked specific questions on the historicity of Genesis 1–9, a higher percentage of respondents from the science department sided with Ken Ham. A whopping 78% of respondents from the religion departments considered themselves 'Old-Earth' Christians, compared to only 35% in the science department! Not surprisingly, Ken finds a moment to rejoice (p. 54):

"It turns out that the science department is much more biblical in their beliefs than the religion department!...The religion chairs and the Bible departments are choosing to be influenced by worldly philosophy rather than what the Bible clearly teaches concerning historical science and the facts of observational science that confirm the biblical record."

I suppose that's one way to put it. We might also consider, however, the fact that a vast majority of Christian scientists reject young-Earth creationism for lack of scientific evidence. If you are a professor of biblical studies with a literature background, how might you weigh the spurious evidence of radioactive carbon in diamonds and excess helium in zircons—especially when Christian scientists that work in radiocarbon and material science labs have exhaustively documented the bogus claims of RATE team studies? When faced with a factual decision on matters outside of our own expertise, we typically defer credibility to expert witnesses, and young-Earth creationists have neither the numbers nor the evidence on their side. Ken further speculates:

"This isn’t surprising, considering most of them attended seminaries that adhere to compromise views such as the “documentary hypothesis,” a theory that denies that Moses wrote a cohesive historical account of history in the first five books of the Bible."

To my knowledge, Ken did not poll respondents on their view of the documentary hypothesis (DH), but I am willing to speculate along with him that a higher percentage of religion professors accept it. The reason is that they deal directly with the textual and historical evidence on which it is based. But I highly doubt that acceptance of this theory is responsible for the divergence in opinion on the age of the Earth. Christian proponents of the DH do not reject the inspiration of scripture, for example, and nearly 90% of Ken's respondents affirmed the inerrancy of scripture.

The Pentateuchal authorship and date of composition is irrelevant, therefore, to whether one accepts the Genesis account as historical. If you already accept the narratives as divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant, does it really matter when the text was written down or by whom? Even if the Flood narrative originated as an eyewitness account (I believe it did), the final Pentateuchal version has added theological imagery and structure. Besides, it is possible to deny that an eyewitness account is 100% accurate. Ken's hypothesis does little, in my opinion, to explain these results.

A better explanation for the departmental dichotomy can be found in their respective literary views of scripture. In the religion department, 73% of respondents believed the creation account is "literally true", but only 57% believe this was done in "six literal 24-hour days". As previously noted, Ken believes this is inconsistent and that respondents are simply confused and contradicting themselves. But in reality, these questions reveal that professors of religion have a better appreciation for the term "literal" than does Mr. Ham.

Another missing link in the train of thought might be found in how respondents view the biblical genealogies. Are they meant to help us back calculate dates for primeval events (like the flood and creation) or were they a later addition meant to add more than just biographical information to the stories? Students of the Bible from each department may approach this question differently, depending on how they normally treat numerical data. The same goes for understanding the days of creation. It is possible to affirm that God created in "six literal days" without attaching "24 hours" to those days and placing them at the head of Ussher's chronology.

When asked whether they thought faculty from the religion and science departments shared the same view on the age of the Earth, 81.5% of religion professors said "Yes" compared to only 36.5% from the sciences. What does this mean? Is there a miscommunication? Ken comments, "The religion department thinks everyone has the same view, but the science department tends to know better." I think Ken oversimplifies the matter, however, and actually overlooks the answer when discussing old vs. young earth views between the departments (p. 56):

"...what I am finding is that most Christian parents and students...expect that...it would be science professors who would be more likely to lean toward evolution/millions of years and that religion professors would be more likely to lean toward a literal creation."

That's exactly right, and it seems everyone had the same presumption. If you recall, 78% of religion professors called themselves 'Old-Earth' Christians—about the same number that believe the science department is on the same page. Conversely, 57% of science professors deem themselves "Young-Earth" Christians—about the same number that believe the religion department is on the same page.

Ken's poll thus confirmed what the general perception has always been: 'millions of years' is a personal tenant of scientists, but people that teach the Bible for a living invariably believe in a young Earth. Of course, the poll also exposed this dichotomy as a myth—most professors in biblical studies do not believe in a young-Earth or a literalistic approach to Genesis.

Ken's refusal to learn from his own test

Although Ken claims not to have been surprised by the results from each department, he does seem bothered that most professors of biblical studies don't share his take on the Bible. So why don't faculty in the religion department adopt his hermeneutic? I think it is because his approach depends on a simplistic view of scripture that refuses to engage in literary, cultural, or historical critical studies—not what you would expect from Ph.D.'s in literature, language, and history. Ironically, Ken blames it on their ignorance of science (p. 56):

"Can the religion department explain the existence of coal deposits and how they were formed? Can they explain the actual structure of the fossil record? Can they explain the assumptions behind radiometric dating methods? No, they can’t."

Judging by the articles offered at Answers in Genesis, neither can you, Mr. Ham. Ultimately, the physical evidence for 'creation science' only makes sense within a non-scientific, young-Earth paradigm, where the conclusion is known from the outset. It seems most folks in the religion department recognize the flawed methodology of young-Earth creationism, and prefer to appeal to people who actually conduct scientific research. This frustrates Ken further, as he tells us (p. 56, emphasis added):

"When I engage liberals from the religion departments...most of them repeat the familiar mantra: “Science has proven that evolution/ millions of years is true.” But when I ask them for specifics, they often don’t have much of a clue, as they are depending on some other authority. If I ask them why they believe in an old earth, they invariably answer, “Because of radiocarbon dating.” But any scientist should know that the radiocarbon dating method can’t be used for something that is supposedly millions of years old."

True, but it can show us how many thousands of objects are older than Noah's flood (trees, sediments, caves, etc.) and the Garden of Eden. It also shows that marine and lake sediments have been accumulating continuously—without catastrophic interruption—for the past 10, 20, or even 50 thousand years.

I suspect Ken might answer with a story about the pre-Flood biomass and post-Flood volcanics diluting the carbon cycle; or a pre-Flood atmosphere that blocked out radiation, or any number of hypotheses contrary to the facts—as long as it protects his reading of scripture. But in the end, the radiocarbon method stands as solid evidence against the young-Earth paradigm, and these professors are justified in citing it. Ken cannot explain, for example, the agreement of radiocarbon dating with U-Th disequilibrium dating (which is unrelated to the factors above), or with tree ring, ice core, and varve counts; or how Native American campfires could date to ~11,000 years ago when they must have burnt long after the Flood.

Conclusion

When asked whether they consider themselves a ‘young-earth or old-earth Christian’, more than twice the respondents from the religion department answered ‘old-earth’ than in the science department. Ken found this result "intriguing and very disturbing.” Ironically, Ham’s approach to science is rooted in a dogmatic dependence on his literalistic reading of Genesis—a reading rejected by the vast majority of professors of religion, according to his own poll. But Ken is too nearsighted to see what this means, and so he hides behind yet another defense mechanism to explain the unexpected result: “The science department tends to know better.”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

This review will be continued in Part 3: Ken Ham's uncompromising approach to alternate views on creation and the flood.

**A condensed version of this book review is available on Amazon, where I gave the book two stars. If you have found the discussion helpful, please vote for the review there.

Book Review (Part 1): Ken Ham takes a page from the KJV-Onlyists in 'Already Compromised'

In their recent book Already Compromised, authors Ken Ham and Greg Hall sound a warning call to parents enrolling their children at Christian colleges around the country. Why the alarm? As it turns out, not every Christian academic shares Ham's view on creation and Earth history. Presumably, students and parents alike opt for Christian higher education to avoid the influence of 'secularism' (i.e. evolution and 'millions of years'), but what "they don’t know," according to Ham, "is that, like the secular schools they wish to avoid...a growing number of the Christian schools they attend are...Already Compromised" (p. 8).

The book begins with a rather simple overview that chronicles the transition of Ivy League seminaries in America to secularized universities. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth—all began as modest institutions designed to raise up ministers in the Puritan and Protestant traditions. But to meet the demands of a growing and diversifying economy, and preserve their stature as major beacons to American intellectuals, these universities adopted principles of academic—and hence religious—freedom in their curriculum. Mr. Ham is correct about one thing: it is mildly disheartening to see the spiritual foundations of our university system blurred in a fog of relativism. But if schools such as Harvard had maintained the narrow disciplinary focus and guidelines that Ham envisions, they would not today be known to us as Harvard, etc., but as that little ol' seminary in Massachusetts.

Regardless of how one thinks the Ivy League schools should have responded to intellectual movements of the past 400 years, we can still ask whether Christian colleges today should follow a similar path. Ken Ham thinks not. In fact, he believes the transition has already begun, and that it's time to take a stand. Ham and Hall polled 312 faculty/administration from ostensibly Christian institutions to assess 'how bad' the situation really is. "Christian colleges took a test on the state of their faith," reads the subtitle, "and the results are in!" If you read the back cover, you might expect the results to be "revealing and shocking!"

But if you've paid any attention to the origins debate in recent years, then prepare to be utterly unsurprised.

Method and agenda

I love polls, and I love pondering the results. Therefore, I would recommend this book to everyone simply on the basis that it contains a detailed analysis of what faculty and administration believe about creation, the age of the Earth, and biblical authority. An independent research group polled faculty/deans from both the science and religion departments, as well as the President and Vice-President of each institution. Both Catholic and Protestant schools were represented. Some institutions required faculty to sign a statement of faith; others did not. Regardless of whether this book properly interpreted the results, the data are bound to be informative and stimulating.

Unfortunately, it seemed the authors had a predetermined agenda that even guided the wording of their poll. "We are at war," writes Greg Hall, "against thoughts...raised up against the knowledge of God...aimed at the minds of our children." (p. 37) Few Christians would disagree, I think, until one recognizes how the authors categorically limit "the knowledge of God." Ken Ham clarifies, anecdotally, "I consider the view of taking a strong stand on six literal days and a young earth as the correct biblical view, and the other views are incorrect."

So this poll is not so much about understanding the diversity in Christian opinion as it is exposing educators that would dare disagree with Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis. Since I am familiar with Ham's work, and the articles that appear at Answers in Genesis, I was not surprised by his suspect methodology (ambiguously worded questions and equivocation of answers). My hope, however, is that you will find it in yourself to think critically through this work, and consider that Ham and Hall may have overstated the case.

KJV Onlyism—what's the connection?

Not far into the 236-page book, I felt that I was reading inside of an echo chamber. Ham's hermeneutic, which I hope to elucidate in the following sections, was eerily familiar. Years ago, I became interested in the field of textual criticism, which seeks to reconstruct the original text of the Bible using variant manuscripts. In short, ancient (hand-written) copies of the Bible do not agree with each other letter for letter, but contain textual variations. A majority of these differences are as meaningless as spelling errors and accidental word omissions (i.e. 'typos'), but a sufficient number of major variants (i.e. additional or variant vocabulary, sentences, or even paragraphs that affect the meaning of a text) exist to keep scholars busy under piles of newly discovered papyri.

Most Christians ignore the issue of textual criticism, or see it as unfruitful. Others, however, are disturbed  that we can't know with 100% certainty the original words of Scripture, and even repulsed by the idea of a 'critical text'. Are these really the words of Jesus and the apostles? Can we still trust the Bible?

This sort of skepticism in Christianity is fertile ground for what is called the King James Version Only movement. Reacting to what they perceive as a threat to the authority of God's word, KJV Onlyists have posited that God inspired an English translation of the biblical text for our day and age. Which version is that? Well, the 1611 King James Authorized Version, of course! Never mind that the KJV was updated a century later, and ultimately rests on the textual critical work of Desiderius Erasmus. KJV Onlyists have elegantly dodged debates surrounding the elusive original text by arbitrarily defining a new datum. [Before moving on, I should note that KJV Onlyism comes in many forms, and I have intentionally simplified the debate here; see The King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White for an excellent, scholarly overview.]

After the King James Version of the Bible has been dogmatically defined as the standard for God's word, rational discourse effectively comes to a halt. If the NIV or NASB do not contain a word or phrase that is found in the KJV (e.g. 1 John 5:7), it is because translators of the newer versions are trying to manipulate God's word (in this case, by willfully removing a prooftext for the Trinity). In the mind of some KJV Onlyists, the appeal to more ancient and widely attested manuscript evidence is but a contrivance of academic elitism—or worse, a Satanic conspiracy.

Within this paradigm, one can only imagine how a poll might be conducted of faculty at Christian colleges. Imagine that you were faced with the following questions:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

(a) Yes

(b) No

2. Do you regularly read the Word of God?

(a) Yes

(b) No

3. Which version of the Bible do you read?

(a) King James Version

(b) New International Version

(c) New American Standard Version

(d) English Standard Version

Now consider the following (hypothetical) results:

1: (a) 97% (b) 3%
2: (a) 87% (b) 13%
3: (a) 11% (b) 42% (c) 15% (d) 32%

To the average person, these data may simply represent current opinions on the doctrine of inspiration or the palpability of each English Bible to the modern reader. But to the KJV Onlyist, there is only one right set of answers: a, a, and a. If an ardent KJV Onlyist were reporting the results, he/she might even comment that 'although 97% of respondents believe the Bible is the Word of God, and still 87% claim to read it, a whopping 89% are apparently confused, because they admit to reading something that is not the Word of God (i.e. the King James Bible) but a secularized corruption! Don't they realize that their answers for 1 and 3 are contradictory?'

If you think this kind of analysis would be misleading, and only muddles the results of the poll, then you can understand my frustration in reading Already Compromised. Consider, for example, the following set of questions from Ham's poll (p. 21–22):

13. Do you believe the Genesis 1–2 account of creation is literally true?
• Yes: 83.0%   • No: 14.7%   • Don't know: 2.2%

16. Do you believe in God creating the earth in six literal 24-hour days?
• Yes: 59.6%   • No: 38.5%

17. Do you believe in God creating the earth, but not in six literal days?
• Yes: 47.1%   • No: 50.6%   • Don't know: 2.2%

How would you respond? I would answer Yes, No, and No. The reason is that I have no trouble adhering to a 'literal' reading of Genesis 1–2 or proclaiming that God created things in 6 'literal' days, but I see no reason to believe these chapters have anything to do with the passage of time on Earth. Rather, it pertains to the 'work week' of the timeless God. Nonetheless, Ken believes my answers to be inconsistent, and so he comments (p. 22, emphasis added):

"It’s clear that we have some confusion here...people didn’t always mean what they said. For example, 83 percent said that they believe Genesis 1 and 2 are literally true. But when we asked whether they believe God created in six literal days, only 59.6 percent answered yes. That means about 23 percent are either confused, wrong, or just haven’t thought this through...Questions 16 and 17 are virtually the opposites of each other...but almost 10 percent of the people answered yes to both questions, indicating that they believe in six literal days of creation and they don’t believe in six literal days of creation!"

Ken's fiat declaration that a literal reading of Genesis requires a 24-hour day, young-Earth model—though well intentioned—is but an artifact of his own hubris. These results merely imply that respondents do not agree with Ken on what the 'literal' reading of Genesis is—not that they are confused or "wrong"! Nonetheless, he continues (p. 34): "nearly four in five who adhere to an old-earth theory believe the Bible is literally true. Keep in mind these two concepts are polar opposites." Like those who limit God's word to a 17th-century translation of the former, Ken has limited the meaning of God's word to his own interpretation, and then acts surprised to find that not everyone follows his line of reasoning.

The inquisition doesn't end at Genesis 2, of course. Ken goes on to analyze respondents' take on the Flood (p. 53, emphasis added): "Notice that while 75 percent and 84 percent said they believe the Bible is literally true, only slightly more than half...believe in a literal worldwide flood! Approximately 25 percent are being inconsistent in their answers." But a question like "Do you believe the Bible is literally true?" is very different from "Do you believe the entire Earth was covered with water several thousand years ago, during which continents rearranged, entire mountain chains were formed, and 99% of animals went extinct as they were buried under miles of sediment; and that every individual terrestrial/avian species today (including humans) is descended from the survivors of a 450-foot long wooden boat?"

Since Ken already knows the diversity of Christian opinion on the Flood story, I find it curious that he would deem it appropriate to phrase the questions as he did. It seems to me that he is creating an experiment in which he already knows the results, and plans to use the data to meet the needs of his agenda. One might give Ken the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that he doesn't understand how the word 'literal' is or ought to be used. That assumption, accurate or not, is key to his recurring rhetoric. He notes, for example, that

"79.1 percent of those who believe the earth is old also believe that the Bible is literally true. The word “literally true” apparently means nothing to them." (p. 123, emphasis added)

No, Mr. Ham. The phrase "literally true" apparently means too little to yourself. Ken hits the nail on the head in page 83, where he says (regarding the 'global' nature of the Flood):

"...even those words donʼt necessarily mean to these academics what they mean to us. Iʼm not saying that theyʼre necessarily being deceptive; theyʼre just not being descriptive. If you want to find out what they really mean, you have to ask very specific questions."

That is absolutely correct. Moreover, you should recognize that the word 'literal' is hardly descriptive in and of itself, in part because our common, connotative use of the word diverges in meaning from the academic use. We don't believe that a 'literal' reading of Genesis requires belief in a young-Earth, or a recent, worldwide, geological catastrophe. Period. To reconcile that point, we must consider what the respondents actually had in mind regarding 'literal' this, and 'literal' that.

The literal literalism of lexical absolutism

I normally try to avoid speaking of the 'literal' reading of Scripture, because I see it a moot point to affirm or deny that God's word is 'literally true'. Regardless of one's answer, it will invariably die the death of a thousand qualifications: "Well, that part is actually metaphorical...and this here is an allegory...and we need archaeology to help us understand these numbers, etc."

We commonly use the word 'literally' in the following, nuanced sense: "I didn't think you would take me literally when I said to 'go fly a kite'!" In other words, 'literal' is pitted against 'figurative'. But in literary analysis, we can speak of 'literal' as being according to the letter—i.e. the plainest meaning of the text as the original audience might understand it. Simply put, there is no consensus on what the 'literal' reading of scripture actually is. But when exegetes speak of the 'literal' reading of the text, they are really asking "What did the original author intend this to mean?"

To answer this question requires some work in determining the literary genre and normal use of vocabulary, as well as the cultural and historical context of each letter. Since Genesis was written more than 3,000 years ago, we are far removed from those contexts, and have only recently uncovered the literary world in which Genesis 1–9 was drafted. Consequently, interpretations of Genesis across history are as fluid as the nuanced usages of its vocabulary. Consider, for example, how the phrase 'And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures..."' might sound to a 4th-century Greek fisherman versus a 21st-century American marine biologist.

Ken Ham and other young-Earth creationists (YECs) try to avoid the obscurity of ancient Near-Eastern cosmologies by committing, arbitrarily, to a flat-footed reading of the text. In other words, they demand a one-to-one correspondence between the text and its meaning. Rather than sowing confusion in throwing around the term 'literal', I would rather term this hermeneutic lexical absolutism, or simply literalism, because it appeals to modern dictionary definition over contextual meaning.

Such a distinction will require YECs to be more specific, particularly when discussing 'biblical truth'. At one point, Greg Hall complains (p. 42):

"I have heard other scholars say that “the Bible is true in all it affirms” (whatever that means)..."

What this means is that the Bible is true in what God meant it to say, not what you think it says. Despite his sarcasm, Greg applies the same principle in denying geocentricism or a flat Earth (or evolution, for that matter), because although some may use the biblical text to find support for any of the above, Greg could simply respond, "Oh, but that's not what the Bible ever intended to teach; you're twisting its words!" Fair enough. The accusation goes both ways, however, so the principle that Greg cites is, at very least, an admission that the human understanding of scripture inevitably results from a fallible, hermeneutical exercise. We affirm the inspiration, infallibility, and perspicuity of scripture by faith. But we also recognize the necessity of semper reformanda—that we should always be reforming our thought—in light of the human tendency to place tradition and personal interest above God's word. Greg continues:

'...but they go on to say that it...should be trusted only in matters of faith, not matters of science. That equivocation is heresy to me, considering that...“all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”'

His citation is from 2 Timothy 3:16, which is the classic prooftext for inspiration and the sufficiency of scripture to bind the Christian conscience. Paul's fourfold use of scripture here pertains specifically to matters of Christian faith, however, and not to 'matter-of-fact' statements about astronomy, geology, and biology. In the surrounding context, Paul explains to Timothy how scripture is able to make one "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus"—a matter of faith—"so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"—a matter of Christian practice.

One may affirm Paul's exhortation in 2 Timothy, therefore, without demanding that Genesis clarify principles of geology. So what is the motivation behind Ken's and Greg's insistence on a 'literal' reading of Genesis that places God's word at odds with the evidence from creation? I think it is to protect believers from having to engage in the origins debate properly, and deal with the theological implications of an old Earth where life evolves to diversify. But instead, it portrays the author of Genesis 1–9 as an unimaginative stenographer, rather than a deep, theological thinker, who saw history and theology as intimately connected and sought to explicate his God's redemptive work through poetic narrative.

Admitting that the latter portrait may have been responsible for the Genesis text will require some humility on our part as we try to unravel the worldview of that author. Young-Earth creationists may have the hermeneutic advantage by avoiding the hard questions, but their arbitrary simplification does not make the problems go away. It merely leads to a picture of Earth history that has less and less to do with reality, all for the sake of maintaining an "us vs. them" mentality with regard to the doctrine of creation. There is no better way, in my opinion, to compromise the minds of our young ones than to root their faith in the spurious evidence for a young Earth and a global flood.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

This review is continued in Part 2: Science vs. Religion (Departments)—which is more 'compromised' according to Ken Ham?

**A condensed version of this book review is available on Amazon, where I gave the book two stars. If you have found the discussion helpful, please vote for the review there.

Looking for a quick, eloquent explanation of evolution and common descent?

Thus far, I have not commented on topics that deal with biological evolution. As stated in my introductory article, my aim was to avoid the subject—not because it is controversial, but rather because it is beyond my expertise. Nonetheless, I wanted to share some reflections from my recent attempt to better grasp the subject. At the end of this article, I have linked a helpful video that discusses the genetic evidence for common descent, and human evolution in particular. Please, check it out!

Deciphering life's message in the rocks

As a geologist, I have a vested academic interest in biological evolution. For one, I have collected thousands of fossiliferous rock samples, and want to understand why specific fossil forms appear where they do in the rock record. And although I am not a paleontologist, these concepts do intercept with my primary disciplinary focus—biogeochemistry. To be succinct, the field of biogeochemistry studies how the chemical interaction of the oceans, atmosphere, rocks, and life have shaped the history of our planet. Why did mass extinctions occur? What caused periods of warming/cooling, and how did the planet respond? How did new organisms fill the niches left vacant by the 'victims' of oceanographic and atmospheric perturbations? When and how did oxygen fill the atmosphere and, conversely, when and how did carbon dioxide become depleted? Understanding the evolution of organisms is integral to every one of these questions when examined on long-term—or geologic—timescales.

For the most part, my schooling and research has only required a modest familiarity with evolutionary processes and the fossil record. In trying to publish my most recent research, however, I had to wrestle with questions about how the ecology of Earth's oceans would respond to a world of rising oxygen, falling carbon dioxide, an increase in major nutrient (phosphate/nitrate) availability, and a decrease in redox-sensitive nutrients (e.g. iron). In other words, how did organisms evolve to survive this dramatically changing world, and what kind of chemical (e.g. isotopic) record would they leave?

I apologize for thinking out loud here in jargon-ridden phrases, but I hope you can appreciate how the major sciences intertwine, and why I am pursuing a better understanding of evolutionary theory. Yes, I have taken basic biology courses and contributed to paleontological research, but these produced more questions than they answered.

Where next?

At the same time, I am aware of the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory in the mind of the general public, and particularly within the church. Personally, I do not have any objections to accepting biological evolution (on scientific or theological grounds), but I understand why many are skeptical of evolution in general, and why others are passionately opposed to accepting any part of it (let alone have it taught to their children!). Nonetheless, I find the emotionally driven, highly polarized 'non-discussion' that takes place between evolutionary biologists and their critics to be unfortunate at best, and childish at worst. Let me give you an example.

When I began my search, I purchased two best-sellers: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, and Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. Yes, some might call this 'pop-science' writing, and an unusual place for a graduate student to seek science lessons. But I simply wanted to know from the start: "What do the most outspoken proponents of evolutionary theory believe is the best evidence?"

In short, I enjoyed reading both books. Their arguments transitioned smoothly from one to the next in logical fashion. When I finished, I thought: "Yeah, that sounds good. This is a well established theory." But I also felt disappointed. I had learned a majority of these arguments already, either years ago in science class or—strangely enough—while browsing through creationist literature! At very few points in each book did I come away with "Aha!" moments in response to novel explanations or examples of the evidence. That being said, Dawkins' explanation of the 'arms race' of evolutionary ecology (the 'tall forests' example), sexual selection, and DNA's role in embryology/development (the 'origami' analogy) were superb—I recommend them to any enquiring student of biology.

Unfortunately, these rather enlightening chapters were prefaced by numerous, rhetorical 'cheap shots' at creationists and an error-ridden explanation of isotopes and radiometric dating. Initially, his major defense against creationism was to call it a product of dogmatism, ignorance, and stupidity. But when Dawkins' touched on subjects that fell under my own expertise—namely, isotope geochemistry—I found that his information was erroneously translated from secondhand sources. In other words, he was arrogantly promoting false information about a subject in which he had never conducted research, because he didn't know enough to correct the errors. Not surprisingly, Dawkins can't seem to figure out why the percentage of people that reject evolution continues to grow.

Don't stop now!

Despite my criticism of Dawkins' approach (and, vicariously, many of his colleagues) to promoting evolutionary theory, my words should not be taken as an ad hominem attack on his conclusions. The evidence for common descent and biological evolution is considerable—overwhelming in some areas—and must be dealt with by any competing theory (of which there are none, currently). But if anyone is interested in convincing the public of this fact (or the church, for that matter), one must learn to address people with respect, while anticipating objections and presenting evidence against those objections. No skeptic of evolution will be convinced by the evidence from comparative anatomy and genomics, for example, if they believe that the challenge of 'irreducible complexity' is insurmountable. No skeptic of human evolution (common descent with the great apes) will be convinced by physical and genetic similarities if they believe 'common design' provides a viable, alternative explanation. Even if Dawkins is correct about evolution, he is preaching to the choir while alienating a majority of his audience.

But there is hope...

Recently, I came across the YouTube series entitled "Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?" by Dennis Venema—a biologist/geneticist at Trinity Western University and Senior Fellow of the Biologos Foundation. After reading his recent, autobiographical article at Biologos, I decided follow up on his work. I am posting the first video below in hopes that you will watch the full series (12 videos). Personally, I have never seen a better explanation of the genetic evidence for evolution. He cites original studies and presents the original data (so you can follow up on your own), while articulating each argument in an easily understandable manner. Best of all, he is respectful to the audience, their questions, and common objections to the evidence. Please, enjoy.*

*For those of you that prefer a written explanation, Dr. Venema's presentation above is taken from a 2010 ASA article (PDF found here).

Nebular hypothesis unwinds? New data recovered from the Genesis spacecraft elucidate Earth's planetisimal past

Following the latest science news, Brian Thomas at ICR commented here on a recent publication in Science regarding the Nebular Hypothesis. McKeegan et al., 2011 presented oxygen isotopic data collected from solar wind by the spacecraft Genesis, which crashed into Earth in 2004 (the collectors were recovered from the wreckage, surprisingly intact). The new data suggest that the inner planets did not derive their oxygen (in the minerals, not atmosphere) from a source that was isotopically homogenous with the sun. Judging by the tone of the article at ICR—titled NASA Data Derail Nebular Hypothesis—I fully expected that our understanding of the solar system was on the verge of a paradigm shift.

But I was wrong.

The Nebular Hypothesis remains intact, only corroborated by the new data. As it turns out, Mr. Thomas understood little, if anything, from the article in Science. In a single reference to McKeegan et al. (2011), Mr. Thomas says, "The bottom line is that the sun is "highly enriched" in oxygen, and astronomers have no idea why." The original article had nothing to do with oxygen concentrations, however, but with isotopic abundances. In other words, the sun is enriched in the ratio of 16O (light oxygen) to 17O and 18O (heavy oxygen)—not in oxygen itself. Second, the whole point of the article was to explain that we do know why the enrichment occurs. We just didn't know how much, because until now, nobody had been able to directly measure oxygen isotopes in solar materials.

The sun is enriched in the lighter oxygen isotope because of mass-dependent fractionation—a process in which one isotope is favored simply because it is heavier or lighter. One earthly example is the evaporation of water: the light isotope (16O) is preferentially evaporated because it is lighter. Therefore, rainwater is 'isotopically depleted' with respect to seawater. In the sun, a process called inefficient Coulomb drag causes lighter isotopes to concentrate in the sun's edge (i.e. the source of solar wind) and heavier isotopes to concentrate nearer the core. As an aside, the isotopic discrepancy is less for heavier elements because the relative difference in mass decreases (e.g. heavy hydrogen is twice the mass of light hydrogen, whereas heavy oxygen is only 12.5% heavier than light oxygen, etc.).

In the inner solar system, where the rocky planets formed, "isotope-selective self-shielding during ultraviolet (UV) photolysis of CO" caused—and still causes—planetisimal source material to become enriched in heavier oxygen isotopes with respect to the solar mass (McKeegan et al., 2011). In fact, this model accurately predicted the new data collected by Genesis.

I would suggest, therefore, that Mr. Thomas jumped too hastily to his conclusion that "the nebular hypothesis is dead...and only supernatural beginnings can account for the peculiarities of the solar system, including the unique amounts of oxygen contained in the sun, planets, and moons." Moreover, this 'God of the Gaps' addendum to the non sequitur resulting from his misreading of McKeegan et al.'s is neither helpful nor convincing (I know, that's a mouthful). Presumably, by "supernatural beginnings", Mr. Thomas is referring to the sudden appearance of fully formed planets and a sun less than 10,000 years ago. But how can this arbitrary and unsupported proposition aid our investigation of the solar system? (By unsupported, I mean absent even from the text of Scripture.)

Not surprisingly, Mr. Thomas and other YEC proponents are confident they can explain any new piece of data. But their ability to explain new data retrospectively does not arise from the scientific, predictive power of YEC. Rather, it arises from the fact that YEC offers no definitive expectations. If the sun's isotopic composition turns out to be X, it is because God created it that way; if the isotopic composition is Y, it is because God created it that way. Mr. Thomas did not explain how the new isotopic data "lead to a purpose-minded designer," despite his likening them to "forensic clues". He merely stated, mistakenly, that the data contradict part of the Nebular Hypothesis.

So, we can all put our minds at ease. The new oxygen isotopic data presented by McKeegan et al. (2011) not only corroborate the Nebular Hypothesis, but allow scientists to estimate the average oxygen isotopic composition of the primordial solar system! And if that doesn't just double your pulse with an astronomical dose of adrenaline, then you probably have no idea what I'm talking about. In fact, you should probably check your pulse anyways...in case you are dying from boredom. Until next time!

Sediment transport during the Flood: qualitative appendix to a quantitative assessment

Did the Noachian Flood deposit the sediments that comprise a bulk of the geologic column? To most of the general public, this might seem a naïve and unsupported hypothesis that was debunked more than 200 years ago. But recent promoters of Flood geology have worked hard to convince Christians that geology still supports the notion of a recent creation and global flood. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris are perhaps best known for reviving the answer to this question in the affirmative, which they expounded in their 1961 publication The Genesis Flood.

Before Whitcomb and Morris, however, Christians had long postulated (i.e. since the early church) that the Flood might explain fossiliferous sediments found high above sea level today. In fact, the ancient Greeks were torn on the issue of whether fossils were remnants of living organisms—in part because they knew of no mechanism that could turn life into stone—and whether the sea had transgressed the land (how would you argue, if you were in their shoes?). Some of the early church fathers offered Noah's flood as a viable explanation to the Greek dilemma. The debate continued until Steno—who finally proved the biogenic origin of fossils to the satisfaction of the scientific community—but early geologists were still unsure how sedimentation worked, and particularly how sedimentary rocks bearing marine fossils could form on mountains! Consequently, Medieval natural philosophers were also inclined to characterize geologic formations in terms of their relation to a global flood in Noah's day.

Were these early hypotheses about Earth history born out of ignorance or incompetence? Not at all. Natural philosophers from Aristotle to Steno did the best they could with the evidence available to them. The only event in history they knew that could bury so many organisms under so much sediment was the Noachian flood. The fact that we were born, coincidentally, many centuries after the tough questions in geology have already been answered does not entitle us to arrogance, or to take pride in 'knowing better' today.

A modern approach to the age-old question

How much sediment could a global flood actually deposit? Early geologists could not answer this question in a quantitative sense. Neither did they know exactly how much sedimentary rock covered the Earth. But after more than a century of exploration and decades of flume experiments, we can at least begin to offer a quantitative assessment.

Sedimentary Rock Inventory

What is the total mass of sedimentary rock on Earth? The exact figure is unknown, but Drever et al. (1988) offered a reasonable estimate that is widely accepted:

Total Mass of Sedimentary Rock: 2.5±0.4 x 10^21 kg

Of which, 0.12 x 10^21 kg (5% of total) lay at the bottom of the oceans today.

Mudstones comprise the majority of this total, followed by carbonates, sandstones, and evaporites. Since sedimentary rock is recycled at plate boundaries (subduction zones), this mass is primarily comprised of Phanerozoic (Cambrian–Recent) sediments, which are considered to be 'Flood' rocks by most YEC's (e.g. Holt, 1996; Froede and Reed, 1999; Oard and Klevberg, 2008).

Could a year-long flood have deposited some 2 billion billion tons of sediment? Let's start small, and answer this question in pieces.

Sediment Transport and the Coconino Sandstone: a quantitative assessment

Since young-Earth geologists must consider 'Flood' rocks as water-lain, formations like the Coconino Sandstone—considered to be an eolian (desert, windblown) deposit—must be reinterpreted to fit the Flood model. In response to an article that appeared in Creation Magazine (Snelling, 1992), Greg Neyman argued strongly that such efforts are misguided and ignorant of the physical evidence (Neyman, 2003). Every detail of the Coconino Sandstone corroborates the conventional hypothesis: the sediments were deposited slowly in a long-lived desert that covered much of the western United States.

Tim Helble, a hydrologist, took the argument a step further (technical article available here). If we assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited under water, we can use sedimentary structures (like cross-bedding) to calculate the rate of sediment transport to the site of deposition. In other words, how long would it take just to move all the sand needed to form the Coconino Sandstone? Find out below, in this well-organized slideshow created by Tim:

Were Earth's Sedimentary Rock Layers Really Deposited by Noah's Flood?

View more presentations from Tim Helble

Keep in mind that this presentation only raises part of the problem: the transport of sandy sediment to the site of deposition. Additional questions remain, which young-Earth geologists must (but cannot) answer. What was the source of such relatively pure and homogenous, quartzose sand in a heavily vegetated, pre-Flood Earth? Why would such rapid and catastrophic deposition result in a formation that is devoid of body fossils from plants/animals (including teeth, vertebrae, and other sand-sized bones)? How could animals leave trace fossils (footprints) if the water was flowing several meters per second? Why doesn't the Coconino Sandstone contain large rip-up clasts from the underlying Hermit Shale (the contact is flat, and even contains mudcracks filled in by sand from the Coconino)?

Finally, the Coconino Sandstone is just one example from the American southwest, and comprises a minor portion of the regional stratigraphy. Mesozoic examples from the Colorado Plateau include the much larger Navajo Sandstone, as well as the Wingate and Dakota sandstones. Why do young-Earth geologists (e.g. Morris, 2010) still insist that these giant formations were laid down in a matter of days, contrary to all the evidence? Because the young-Earth, biblical hermeneutic is remarkably rigid and unrelenting. Though designed to protect the faith from modernism and liberalism, it rather prevents YEC's from witnessing the full beauty of God's creation, while leaving modernism/liberalism unscathed.

Andrew Snelling 'responds'

Although Snelling (2008) does not respond directly to the challenges above, he did provide some comfort to his readers in the form of misdirection. Snelling conveniently ignores the problem of sediment transport by attempting to turn it around on "slow and gradual" geologists. He argues that since the Coconino Sandstone contains detrital zircons from the Appalachians, the situation "poses somewhat of a dilemma...because no known sediment transport system is capable of carrying sand across the entire North American continent during the required millions of years."

Ironically, Dr. Snelling proves the impossibility of such transport with a geographic map of modern North America, on which the Mississippi River drainage basin currently covers most of the continental U.S.! As it turns out, water tends to move downhill, and rivers are perfectly capable of carrying sediments from distant mountain belts to low-lying deserts and coastal plains. During the late Paleozoic and Mesozoic, the Colorado Plateau was near sea-level, and rivers flowed from the Appalachian Range out west toward Nevada (opposite of today). But Snelling continues:

"It must have been water over an area even bigger than the continent. All they can do is postulate that some unknown transcontinental river system must have done the job. But even in their scientific belief system of earth history, it is impossible for such a river to have persisted for millions of years."

Why must water cover an area bigger than the continent for mineral grains to be transported cross-country? Fragments of the Rocky Mountains can be found in the Mississippi River delta today. But I've driven across Colorado and am happy to report: it's not submerged in water!

Sand-sized grains in modern deserts (e.g. Sahara, Gobi, Great Victorian) are commonly sourced from both near and far. The discovery that the Coconino and Navajo sandstones derived some of their material from hundreds of miles distant is hardly surprising. Furthermore, river systems are not always a necessary transport mechanism, since prevailing winds may accomplish the same under favorable conditions (if even from one side of the desert to another). Lastly, I would challenge Dr. Snelling to explain why a continental river system (e.g. Mississippi, Nile, Amazon) could not persist for millions of years. This statement is complete fluff to divert readers' attention from the real issue: even a global flood could not deposit the great sandstones of the Colorado Plateau in less than a year.

Rapidly deposited stratigraphy at Mt. St. Helens

The landscape evolution around Mt. St. Helens has been a favorite topic of young-Earth geologists. In fact, Dr. Steve Austin and others recently led a GSA field trip to the volcano (summary here from Dr. Austin; response here from one attendee), in part to show how rapidly sedimentation and erosion can take place. The unstated argument is as follows:

The eruption at Mt. St. Helens proved deposition and erosion are not always gradual. How effectively, then, could a global flood account for Phanerozoic sediments and subsequent erosion (e.g. Grand Canyon)?

Austin and others thus relied on a subtle 'hook, line, and sinker' tactic to reel others into their own way of thinking (the tactic is more explicit in creationist literature, of course). Nonetheless, they did not fabricate the data. In less than 30 years, Mt. St. Helens did produce thick bodies of fine-laminated sediments, bury entire forests, and carve out a large canyon. So why are 'conventional' geologists yet unconvinced by the arguments of Austin (1986)?

Greg Neyman (2005) answered this question succinctly and accurately: the events at Mt. St. Helens are easily incorporated into uniformitarian models of Earth history, because volcanic eruptions are an 'everyday' part of Earth cycles, geologically speaking. Geologists do not rule out the possibility of rapid deposition/erosion a priori, but rather use the scientific method to treat each case individually (gathering data to falsify or corroborate the initial hypothesis). Consequently, many examples of rapid deposition are known from the geologic column—from tsunami and submarine landslide deposits to meteor impacts to megafloods. On the other hand, young-Earth geologists do rule out the possibility of slow deposition a priori, and commonly distort the facts to corroborate their misguided antithesis.

So how do we tell the difference? Austin (1986) reported:

"[Mt. St. Helens] deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. Conventionally, sedimentary laminae and beds are assumed to represent longer seasonal variations, or annual changes, as the layers accumulated very slowly."

Despite his effort to the contrary, Dr. Austin thus provides good reason to accept conventional age assignments for the geologic column, and interpretations regarding its deposition. Consider the following:

1) Deposits around Mt. St. Helens are rich in volcanic glass and minerals, unlike a majority of fine-laminated mudstones in the geologic record. No geologist denies that volcanic ash can be deposited rapidly—in a matter of hours or even minutes.

2) Fine-grained sand and mud is also known to accumulate rapidly under favorable circumstances (e.g. submarine density flows). But the result is a thin-bedded mudstone that forms unique contacts with the underlying sediment (resembling flame structures) or even antidunes. Shale, on the other hand, forms when relatively flat clay minerals are preferentially oriented as they accumulate slowly in still waters. Both examples are found in the sedimentary rock record (though more commonly the latter), so geologists are not challenged by Austin's claim.

3) Sedimentary structures aside, rapidly deposited mudstones cannot be traced over large distances (such as in the Green River Formation, or even the Bright Angel Shale). Instead, thin beds and laminae will 'pinch out', or disappear laterally, as seen in the Mt. St. Helens' deposits or the experiments of Berthault (summarized by Snelling, 1997).

4) Sometimes, thin laminae result from seasonal effects on the basin (e.g. stratification and overturn of a large lake). But geologists do not simply assume this to be the case. Rather, they use mineralogical, paleontological, and geochemical criteria to distinguish seasonal varves from other phenomena. For example, the concentration of organic matter will vary significantly in varves, along with the carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen isotopic signatures. Major and trace element concentrations should also vary, reflecting a difference in climatic conditions and sediment source during each season (sediments from oxic, river water vs. sediments in the oxygen-poor, deep water). The example of Austin (1986) has absolutely nothing to do with varve interpretation.

5) A 25-foot deposit is impressive, especially for having formed in less than a day, but the sediment transport mechanism is unique to volcanic eruptions: a high-density ash flow. As Tim Helble's presentation demonstrates, similar transport rates in submarine conditions will not produce the sedimentary structures (esp. cross bedding) seen throughout the geologic column.

6) Once again, 25-feet is a lot of sediment. But in some places, Phanerozoic sediments are more than 5 miles thick, not including the sediment removed by unconformities! Austin's explanation would require deposition to occur at several times the rate seen at Mt. St. Helens, every day, for an entire year, while sorting thousands of fossil assemblages into precise, stratigraphic intervals. The stratigraphy of Mt. St. Helens does not provide a viable analog for this speculative, impossible scenario.

Heterogeneity of the Geologic Column: a qualitative appendix

The two examples above provide YEC's with the best possible data to explain sedimentary strata in terms of rapid deposition. Large sandstone units like the Coconino and Navajo contain obvious evidence of fluid flow, which is ubiquitous throughout the formations. Likewise, sedimentary structures in deposits around Mt. St. Helens are relatively homogenous. Whether slow or fast, a single mechanism seems to be responsible for the deposition of each unit.

By mechanism, I am actually referring to what is called the flow regime. A flow regime is defined by the physical characteristics of the fluid: how deep was the fluid and how fast was it moving? Based on flume experiments, geologists can interpret the flow regime using grain size and sedimentary structures (e.g. as was done for the Coconino Sandstone in the slide presentation above). Conversely, variations in grain size and sedimentary structures indicate when the flow regime changed during deposition, and by how much.

A quick look at strata in the Grand Canyon reveals that even if deposition were rapid and catastrophic, the flow regime must have changed many times. Below is a picture of the Supai Group, comprised of alternating limestone, shale, siltstone, and sandstone.

View from the South Rim. Late Paleozoic strata from the Supai Group in the foreground.

Whatever mechanism was responsible for deposition, the depth, direction, and rate of flow must have changed many times to produce such a heterogeneous body of sediment. Moreover, the respective sediment sources must have been geographically distinct (i.e. limestone from one region; quartz sand from another). There is no reason, hydrodynamically, that carbonate sediments would separate from siliciclastics, particularly because carbonate grains range in size from clay (micritic mud) to sand (ooids) to pebbles (shells, intraclasts and oncoids). But if the flow regime and sediment source were highly variable over the duration of the Flood, why do we find sand, shale, and carbonate bodies like these that can be correlated across continents?

Microfacies of Carbonate Rocks

Austin (1990), and a feedback article from Creation magazine, posited that thick layers of carbonate rock (limestone, dolostone) were also deposited rapidly. Austin (1990) said that prevailing currents during the Flood may have transported massive quantities lime mud and its constituents from the sea to the continents. He even cites evidence of fluid flow that is meant to contradict that conventional interpretation of limestone formations in the Grand Canyon. His understanding seems to be, however, that according to conventional geology, all limestone was deposited in "calm, placid seas."

This generalization is misleading, since most limestones are interpreted to have been deposited in very shallow water (less than 200 meters, but usually less than 10 meters). Carbonate sediments are just as susceptible, therefore, to waves and currents. Consequently, most ancient limestones contain sedimentary structures like cross-bedding, horizontal bedding, mud drapes, and rip-up clasts. Others contain evidence of subaerial exposure (dissolution cavities, mudcracks) or long-term interaction with microorganisms (microbialites, stromatolites, thrombolites, oncoids, bioturbation). Carbonate rocks are thus divided into microfacies, based on composition, structure, and fossils. Each microfacies reflects different conditions (water depth, velocity, salinity, etc.) at the time of deposition.

Below is a combination of two photos taken near Timpanogos Cave, Utah (my apologies for no scale; each photo covers a little more than 1 square foot). In the photo on the left, the upper layer contains rip-up clasts (>2 cm diameter) of lime mud. The name of this rock is intraclastic rudstone. For mud clasts to be incorporated, the sediment had to be deposited 1) in a current; and 2) within proximity to a layer of weakly cemented (and dried) lime mud. But if the current were too strong, the finer-grained matrix (i.e. the dark material between mud clasts) would have remained in suspension. If the fragile mud clasts came from a long distance, they would have been destroyed during transport. Modern, shallow, carbonate platforms provide a viable analog for this type of deposition (specifically, the intertidal zone). Flood geology, on the other hand, finds itself in a conundrum. Why does the intraclastic rudstone comprise such a thin layer, distinct in every physical aspect from the surrounding carbonate sediments, if sediments were being deposited so rapidly? What is the source of these fragile mud clasts if the whole land was submerged?

Carbonate rocks near Timpanogos Cave, Utah, illustrating the microscale, sedimentological diversity of carbonate rocks. Each photo is approximately 1 square foot.

In the photo on the right, thin bedding is visible in the top and bottom layers, indicative of gentle currents that sorted the fine-sand-sized particles. In the middle, a coarse shell hash represents higher energy conditions, but with little sorting of the grains, which range from less than 1 mm to more than 2 centimeters across. The dark-gray/tan bed near the bottom is an oolitic packstone—a somewhat muddy, carbonate beach sand. Each facies suggests deposition in the shallow subtidal zone (<10 meters water depth at any time; below low tide), where sand bars constantly prograde across the shallow platform. Once again, Flood geology cannot account for the sedimentological diversity of this rock, because rapid deposition cannot separate these sediments with such precise detail in a matter of minutes.

Conclusion

Only long-term, prevailing currents can deposit homogeneous sediments (like the Coconino) across the face of a continent in a global flood scenario. In response, YEC's propose that large-scale, regional currents were responsible for depositing extensive, tabular beds of sandstone, shale, and limestone. But such currents cannot account for the heterogeneity found in the layers of the Bright Angel Shale, Supai Group, and other formations. Consequently, YEC's must also argue that repeated transgression, regression, and periods of 'stand-still' occurred amid the flood, wherein sediments of differing clast size and composition could be deposited between larger waves. But if continuous, prevailing currents are not sufficient even to carry the sediment required even for the 150–500 foot-thick Coconino Sandstone within a full year, how can Flood geologists explain the remaining miles of sediment in the Colorado Plateau?

The challenge grows immensely when one examines the microscale heterogeneity in sedimentary rocks (carbonates in particular). Catastrophic, sediment-choked currents would have had zero time to slow down, change directions, or stop completely. Therefore, Flood geology cannot satisfactorily explain the range of geological data as a unified theory. But unfortunately, Flood geologists continue to mislead amateur readers by explaining various phenomena in isolation from the relevant data. The result is a confused populace, seeking only to reconcile their faith with the facts of nature. Such misplaced trust is unhealthy, in my opinion, for the future of public/private education, the scientific community, and especially for the church.


References Cited (but not linked):

Drever, J.I., Li, Y.-H., and Maynard, J.B., 1988, Geochemical Cycles: The Continental Curst and the Oceans, in Gregor, C.B., Garrels, R.M., Mackenzie, F.T., Maynard, J.B., [editors], Chemical Cycles in the Evolution of the Earth: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 276 p.

Grand Canyon, AZ to Logan, UT — A Geology Photo Tour

I've decided that this blog has too many words!

So to compensate, I have littered this post with geology-related photos from the past month. These pictures are in no particular order (chronological, geographic, or even logical), so forgive the randomness. Click on the pictures to view in full size. Also, please feel free to share, but link to the original source if applicable. Enjoy!

Antelope Island, Utah

Antelope Island is well known for its population of American Bison. This bison is grazing on vegetation that is growing in Holocene lake sediments, which formed during Lake Bonneville's life and fall (esp. ~12,000 B.C. to present). Quartzite boulders, like those in the background, litter the landscape, and have eroded from nearby outcrops of the Cambrian Tintic Quartzite (equivalent to the Tapeats Sandstone of the Grand Canyon). If Lake Bonneville were to refill, large boulders such as these would be found amid 'calm-water' sediments. These sediments overly much older sedimentary/igneous rock, but are separated from them by an erosional unconformity. A similar phenomenon is found at the base of the Grand Canyon, where Proterozoic Quartzite boulders are cited as evidence for catastrophic deposition by young-Earth (Flood) geologists.

The bedrock of Anteleope Island ranges in age from Mesoproterozoic, igneous basement (Farmington Canyon Complex) to Cambrian sedimentary rocks. Sandwiched somewhere in the middle (and beneath the bison in this photo) is a Neoproterozoic diamictite. This particular diamictite preserved evidence of glaciation from one of the Cryogenian 'Snowball Earth' events, during which glaciation extended to the tropics. At that time, Utah formed the northern shore of a large, equatorial continent.

A granodioritic gneiss boulder of the ~1.8 billion-year-old Farmington Canyon Complex, which comprises the basal outcrop of the Wasatch Range and a bulk of the basement rock for northern Utah.

Eastern shores of Antelope Island, and a great example of Walther's Law of Facies in action. As the lake recedes, marshland will advance over what used to be shoreline and lake-bottom sediments. Thus a geologic cross section of the region will reveal a transition from fine-grained, calcareous mudstone to oolitic sandstone to organic-rich, calcareous siltstone with fragments of grasses/shrubs. Each layer will appear to be flat, when in fact deposition occurred in adjacent environments on a gentle slope.

Why are sedimentary rocks so flat? Despite the relief generated by the bounding mountain ranges, most sedimentary basins are extremely flat. Since topographic highs (i.e. mountain ranges) provide sediment to the basin, they will not be preserved in the geologic record, except as detrital fragments in the valley sediments. With the aid of radiometric dating, geologists study the composition of sedimentary rocks through time to reconstruct the tectonic (or structural) history of a sedimentary basin. 

Shoreline sands in the Great Salt Lake are comprised of oolitic carbonate (i.e. tiny snowballs of calcium carbonate). Minor sand bars, seen above in the foreground, will form thin sets of oolitic grainstone (limestone) with low-angle cross bedding. Thin lenses of silty mudstone should also form between bed sets, as wind and stagnant water cover the sand with dust between storms. Avian footprints are common on the beach (namely, seagull). Although wave action commonly erases the visible evidence, prints of the heavier gulls will be preserved a few centimeters below the surface as carbonate grains/mud are compacted beneath their feet. One time, I found the fully articulated skeleton of a seagull (meat-free, but a few feathers still intact) buried in the carbonate sand. How are bird skeletons (e.g. Archaeopteryx) preserved in lake carbonates? Now I know! Fossilization requires 'rapid' burial, but not that rapid.

Bingham Canyon Copper Mine (Rio Tinto/Kennecott), Utah

Difficult to describe or capture in a single photograph. This mine is big— the largest open-pit copper mine in the world, in fact. In addition to copper, the mine produces economical supplies of gold, molybdenum, and sulfuric acid. Yes, I learned that from the video in the visitor's center...and a personal tour through the core lab!

Up, down, up, down—non-stop delivery of ore and waste. Note the bulldozer and full-size pickup for scale.

Timpanogos Caves, Utah

American Fork Canyon, as seen from the entrance to Timpanogos Caves. When the caves first formed (some half a million years ago), they were at the same elevation as the river. Coincident uplift of the Wasatch Range and downcutting of the river, however, have since separated the two by ~1,000 vertical feet. Flowstone and riverine sediments within the cave were dated to estimate rates of uplift (less than 1 mm/year, on average).

Helictites and soda-straw stalactites. Variations in climatic conditions (temperature, humidity, precipitation, soil activity) can affect the rate of dripwater flow and calcite precipitation within a cave. This results in seemingly stochastic growth patterns for individual speleothems, pictured above.

When the tour began, we were asked: "What would you do if you found a cave like this for the first time?" I responded, "Take samples!" I don't think the tour guide like my response, but I make no apologies. I would love to take either of these currently forming stalagmites back home with me—well, to the lab, that is. Each stalagmite is about 1.5–2 meters tall.

The inevitable collision course of speleothem formation. Some things just don't last forever...

The closest thing left to 'pristine beauty' in Timpanogos Caves. Not much else to say, except that the 'night' setting on my wife's camera added a very special effect from the artificial lamp placed by the park service.

Brecciation and recrystallization of the host carbonate. When these rocks were deeply buried, the weight of overlying sediment caused the brittle carbonates to fracture. Subsequent fluid flow allowed for the reprecipitation of relatively pure, white calcite (compared to the dark, organic-rich limestone/dolostone surrounding). In other words, these rocks have been lithified for a very long time.

East Canyon Reservoir, Utah

A great day of fishing, interrupted briefly by a dark rain cloud. The positioning of the cloud caused the Wasatch Range (background) to appear rather surreal.

The red conglomerates that outcrop near I-80/I-84 in northeastern Utah are synorogenic to the Sevier Fold-Thrust Belt—a mountain range that runs north-south through northern Utah, southern Idaho, and western Wyoming. During the Late Mesozoic, sedimentary rocks in this region were 'squeezed' together by tectonic forces, causing them to be folded and thrust on top of each other (see cross section here for a more graphic depiction). Pebbles and boulders that comprise the conglomerate above are weathered fragments of earlier Mesozoic and Paleozoic rocks. In other words, the underlying rock layers must have been fully lithified before this conglomerate was deposited in the Late Cretaceous. Since that time, more than a mile of Cenozoic sediments accumulated over the conglomerate before it was exposed here. Synorogenic deposits provide the clearest evidence, I think, for the antiquity of the geologic column. 

Cache Valley (Logan), Utah

May in Cache Valley: ample snowmelt for the summer.

Fault scarps and lacustrine (lake shore) benches are common sights along the Wasatch Range. Can you pick them out?

Layton, Utah

View south toward the Oquirrh Mountains (west of Salt Lake City), which overlook Magna, UT and the south end of the Great Salt Lake. 

The windows of heaven. Antelope Island seen at the bottom right.

Grand Canyon (south rim), Arizona

Outcrop of the Kaibab Limestone, which was deposited in shallow marine conditions during the Permian (~260 million years ago). Four different carbonate lithofacies can be seen in this photo alone, each representing a different depositional environment and different flow regime (i.e. water depth/velocity). The heterogeneity of Grand Canyon sediments has long been overlooked by Flood geologists, who have mistakenly proposed that catastrophic slurries of lime mud and seashells could account for thick carbonates like the Kaibab. Each carbonate layer above differs in 1) grain size and composition, 2) clay vs. carbonate content, 3) cement type and composition, and 4) fossil type and abundance. These differences cannot be explained by hydrodynamic sorting alone (many features, like oncoids, result from algae/bacteria living in the sediments for years). Sedimentary structures provide evidence of weak tides and waves, or even subaerial exposure, but not catastrophic flow in deeper water.

Supai Group (late Mississippian to early Permian). The 'step-like' slope at the base of the picture results from alternating fine and course-grained carbonates and mudstones of the Watahomigi Formation. The cyclic pattern is interpreted to result from 1) long-term variations in sea-level; 2) progradation of carbonate sand bars (think modern Caribbean); or 3) (more likely) a combination of the two. The semi-arid climate of southern Nevada has similarly produced excellent exposures of cyclic carbonates, bearing testimony to a time when a dynamic sea transgressed most of the western United States.

Well, that's all for now! Perhaps I should do this more often? Geology is always explained most effectively by pictures, in my opinion. I welcome any feedback (or corrections?) or additional photos that you'd like to share. Again, please feel free to share any pictures you find here, but link to the original source if applicable (i.e. if reposted online).

Coming up short: Coal beds and the "Pre-Flood Biomass"

One remarkable topic within Flood geology is that of the pre-Flood biomass—that is, the total mass of organisms (alive or dead) on Earth before Noah's flood. In addition to explaining a water source to cover the whole Earth and a sediment source to supply the Phanerozoic rock column, young-Earth geologists must also explain how the entirety of fossilized organisms existed simultaneously on Earth at the onset of the Flood. Impossible, you say? In Flood geology, there is always an explanation.

I won't delve into the details of young-Earth arguments, however, because I don't think it is necessary. In short, Flood geologists believe that all fossils* (from frustules to shells to molds to bones) represent organisms that were alive or recently deceased when Noah's flood began (e.g. Snelling tackles the chalk issue here; see also Greg Neyman's brilliant, succinct response here). Petroleum reservoirs (coal, oil, and gas) are also assumed to be dominantly biogenic, and thus from pre-Flood plants, algae, bacteria, etc. Adding up these figures would result in a rather crowded planet, but Flood geologists assure us that climatic conditions prior to the flood were more favorable to life than today, and so Earth could accomodate such a population.

Supplying the world with coal

Dr. Andrew Snelling reviewed the particular case of coal in an article posted here from 1986. Although he concludes that Earth could sustain forests capable of supplying the world's coal reserves, his argument assumes some rather arbitrary or inaccurate conditions. For example, he uses a compaction ratio of less than 2:1 from vegetation to coal, meaning that it would take less than 2 meters of raw vegetation to produce 1 meter of coal. His reasoning was based on "modern research," which "shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal," but he fails to cite the supposed research. As it turns out, the compaction ratio of peat to coal is much lower than geologists originally thought, but peat—essentially a type of soil—is very different, qualitatively, from catastrophically buried, raw vegetation.

Dr. Snelling also supposes that the pre-Flood land surface was approximately twice that of today. "If then this vast land area was under lush vegetation," he says, "then we can account for 100% of the known coal reserves." But this scenario is not only falsified by Precambrian stratigraphy (which is dominantly marine and quite extensive), but would result in a far more arid landscape (i.e. less ocean = fewer big storms; greater average distance to water = more continentality). Vapor canopy, you say? We'll leave that one to the jury.

An article by Gerhard Schönknecht (1997; posted by CMI) analyzed the problem with more depth and honesty, but still relied on highly improbable conditions (e.g. 40% thick-forest cover over the entire Earth; near perfect preservation). Could a pre-Flood biomass account for all the coal beds on Earth? Well, perhaps...but as I said, that question is rather inconsequential to a much larger problem.

Carbon conundrum

Discussions on whether a pre-Flood biomass could supply organic carbon to the world's coal reserves are simply misguided. Why? After explaining the origin of coal, one must account for the organic carbon in all other petroleum resources, from oil to asphalt to natural gas. Furthermore, one should account for the fact that most oil/gas/coal was never preserved or has been eroded out since deposition.

After these masses are summed, one should factor in that this accounts for only 0.13% of all organic matter buried in sedimentary rocks (nearly every sedimentary rock contains some organic matter, if only 0.01%).

So where did all the carbon come from? Ultimately, today, it comes from CO2 in the atmosphere. Can we assume photosynthesis occurred before the flood? If so, the drawdown would have been so great that one must posit an extraordinary source of carbon, several thousands of times larger than today, to the atmosphere. Flood geologists have yet to create a viable, pre-Flood carbon cycle that explains both fossil biomass and isotopic values of organic matter and carbonates.

The real 'pre-Flood biomass'

How much organic carbon is actually in the geologic column? Holser et al. (1988) provided the following estimates:

Fossil Fuels:
Bitumen (recoverable coal/oil/gas): 11,400 Gigatons Carbon

Other Sediments:

Pelagic ocean sediments: 756,000 Gigatons Carbon
Unlithified shelf/slope sediments: 4,400,000 Gigatons Carbon
Sedimentary rocks: 9,000,000 Gigatons Carbon

Total Exogenic Organic Carbon: 14,160,000 Gigatons Carbon!

Let's compare that to nowadays:

Modern Biomass (living and dead): 4,400 Gigatons Carbon

In other words, the amount of organic carbon on the surface of the Earth is more than 3,000 times that found in the entire modern biomass. If every organism on Earth (dead and alive) was suddenly buried in a flood and swept to the bottom of the ocean, the amount of organic carbon transported to the deep ocean would equal less than 1/170th the amount already buried in its sediments.

Might I suggest approaching Genesis with a less anachronistic and lexically rigid hermeneutic?


*Although I say "all" fossils and petroleum reservoirs, it depends on where one assigns the 'pre-Flood' and 'post-Flood' boundaries. To be fair/accurate, I should say Cambrian–Cretaceous at minimum, but I think the point is inconsequential to my argument.


References Cited:

Holser, W.T., Schidlowski, M., Mackenzie, F.T., Maynard, J.B., 1988, Biogeochemical Cycles of Carbon and Sulfur, in Gregor, C.B., Garrels, R.M., Mackenzie, F.T., Maynard, J.B., [editors], Chemical Cycles in the Evolution of the Earth: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 276 p.