1 | 2 |

Biblical Creationism After a Century of Scientific Investigation [2]

© 2002 Spectrum/AAF. All rights reserved.

By Ross O. Barnes

There is a current tendency in Adventist creationist circles to accept the evidence of internal and external consistency in radiometric dating and even the assumption of invariant decay rate, but to assign the measured ages to inorganic matter created during the initial creation as described in Genesis 1:1. This accommodation, of course, relies on the so-called "gap theory" that assigns original creation of matter and energy to Genesis 1:1 and then a recent ordering of this initial creation during the events de- [7] scribed in Genesis 1:2ff. I cannot comment on the exigetical arguments advanced for this theory. However, the use of the gap theory as a means of accommodating radiometric dating to a short geological time scale does not appear to be defensible upon careful examination of actual dating procedures and results and of the structural, physical and chemical principles of rock formation. I do not know of any valid and consist interpretation of available evidence that allows us to make this general separation between properly determined radiometric age formation time of a sedimentary rock, and the burial of its enclosed fossil remains. If a close and detailed examination of this question substantiates this conclusion, those who have followed the "gap theory" of accomodation will be in a predicament. I think that the most consistent and sound theological and scientific position is to question the validity of radiometric dating, especially the assumption of invariant decay rates, in principle, if the earth has recently experienced a cosmic catastrophe called the flood. This position, of course, negates the present possibility of scientific verification since the evidence suggests that radiometric dating is a valid procedure.

We may now turn to the evidence conerning the nature of the major process(es) responsible for depositing the sedimentary rocks found in the crust of the earth. The most plausible current literal creationist model is the "Ecological Zonation Theory."14 In brief, it states that a major portion of the sedimentary rocks (with their enclosed fossils) represents the sequence in which floral and faunal communities living at higher and higher elevations were buried by the rising Flood waters. These waters are presumed to have covered the highest mountains—though not necessarily to have risen as high as our present mountains.15

According to this theory, the observed fossil remains that were buried during the Flood represent, in general, a cross-section of plants and animals living at one time before the flood rather than the record of communities that succeeded one another on the surface of the earth over a long period of time. Differences among flora and fauna in the fossil record are due to geographical variations, not evolutionary development in time, thus the name "Ecological Zonation Theory." Moreover, if the theory is to have any interpretive validity, the various altitudinal zones must have been disturbed and buried more or less simultaneously worldwide and in the same original successive order everywhere. One would expect, on the basis of the ecological zonation theory, that all deposits representing habitats at or near the pre-Flood sea level would occupy approximately the same position in the worldwide sequence of sedimentary rocks and that higher terrestial zones would dominate above that level.

The standard secular model, on the other hand, suggests that differences in the fossil record are the result of evolutionary changes with time as well as geographical variations. In other words, the sequence represents the entombment of successive communities of organisms—one period of life living on top of the remains of previous periods of life.

I do not think that one has to resort to mountains of complex and obscure data to evaluate the general plausibility of the above models. As in the case of special creation versus evolution, the broad aspects of the geological data serve to support one or the other of the two explanations.

I will attempt to answer in a general fashion two basic questions that emphasize the divergences of literal creationism and standard geological thought. (1) Can the observed sequence of fossil deposits be rationally explained in terms of geographic and ecological variations as predicted by "ecological zonation" or does the sequence show progressive changes in floral and faunal types with no definite ecolog- [8] ical zonation as predicted by the standard geological model? (2) Do the apparent source areas of sediments seem to fit the ecological zonation model of antediluvian land masses being eroded to higher and higher levels (general source area relatively stationary during deposition of sediments)? Or do the sites of erosion and deposition vary or possibly reverse during a depositional sequence as allowed by standard secular theory?

The best way to approach these questions is to examine the general nature and relationships of sedimentary strata in some large area where these relationships are simple enough to be compassed in a brief presentation. I have chosen the United States between the Appalachian and Sierra Nevada mountains because the structural geology of this region is relatively simple. I will briefly summarize some of the characteristics of the sedimentary sequences in this area that are relevant to our question.16

The lower Paleozoic rocks of this region are almost all of shallow water marine origin with a large proportion consisting of carbonates (limestone). Carbonate rocks represent the accumulated remains of aquatic organisms with carbonate skeletal structures or shells (corals, molloscs, etc.) and/or carbonate removed from waters supersaturated with carbonate minerals. When these rocks were formed, there was apparently no significant land mass in this whole large region.

The upper Paleozoic deposits covering large areas of the central U.S. consist of alternating layers of marine limestone with shallow water fossils, marine and fresh water clays, well-sorted sands and coal beds with vegetation probably derived from low, often swampy forests. Rocks later than Pennsylvanian are essentially absent from the northeast and north central part of the U.S. Apparently, this area has been above sea level ever since and subject to continual but not intense erosion.

Deposition of marine strata continued, however, across the area now called the Great Plains and westward. Rocks next deposited in this region (Lower Mesozoic) generally show the marine strata receding to the west in a belt through Nevada, Utah and Idaho. In the Rocky Mountain region, these deposits are largely derived from land masses rather than marine waters with large sandstone deposits, especially in the southern part of this area. In upper Mesozoic rocks, alternations of marine and nonmarine strata predominate in this region. The Cretaceous strata show such alternations, with coal beds in some respects similar to the Pennsylvanian strata of the eastern and central U.S., except that the fossil types are distinctly different.

The end of the Mesozoic essentially marks the end of deposition of strata of marine origin in the western interior U.S. (bounded by the Sierra Nevadas and the Mississippi). Whereas marine waters retreated from the East and Midwest in the late Paleozoic, they were present in the western interior until the end of Mesozoic deposition. At the end of Mesozoic sedimentation this generally flat country was uplifted, folded and faulted with the formation of the Rocky Mountains. The uplifted areas were subject to relatively rapid erosion. The strata resulting from this erosion contain mammal and land plant fossils and are deposited in a wedge to the east of the mountains and in structural basins within the mountain belt itself.

Sedimentation along the Gulf Coastal Plain followed a somewhat different course than that of the Great Plains and western [9] regions after the late Paleozoic uplift of the eastern U.S. Sedimentation here exhibits an alternation of shallow water marine deposits and low-coastal-plain, nonmarine deposits suggesting an oscillation of sea level that alternately flooded and exposed this region. Such a depositional environment has apparently continued to the present day.

Based on these data, we can conclude the following: (1) Rocks of shallow marine origin are found from the top to the bottom of the sedimentary section. These shallow water rocks contain fossils of apparently similar habitat (ecology). However, the characteristic fossil forms definitely change as one proceeds from top to bottom. All of these rocks, representing similar source area and depositional environments, can be successfully classified into the sequence of rock systems of Figure 1 by biostratigraphic correlation techniques. (2) Except for the lowermost Paleozoic, nonmarine rocks are also present throughout the section again with characteristic fossil forms changing from top to bottom. (3) The sedimentary and fossil characteristics of the Cenozoic continental strata of the Rocky Mountain region suggest predominately local source areas for both sediment and fossil remains. However, these local source areas do not appear to be enduring antediluvial highlands reached by Flood waters during the latter stages of the Flood. As already mentioned, these local source areas were being covered with marine strata until shortly before the Rocky Mountain uplift—a very unlikely refuge area for antediluvial land animals and plants. (4) The fossiliferous strata in this large area covering most of the U.S. do not appear to be zoned ecologically but taxonomically. In other words, similar ecologies are found throughout the section but the characteristic fossil forms change from top to bottom - i.e., (1) and (2) above. (5) The distribution of these fossiliferous strata seems to show successive life communities inhabiting the same general area in temporal succession—i.e., (3) above.

Returning to our original two questions, the reader should note that the above observations accord with the predictions of the standard geological model rather than ecological zonation theory. This poor fit of theory with some obvious and general features of the sedimentary record suggests that "ecological zonation" may be a poor starting point for developing a more detailed geological Flood model.

In summary, the Biblical concept of special creation of life can be defended, with no apology, from scientific data. However, as presently conceived, critical historical predictions or consequences of a literal creationist model do not accord with the more obvious and general features of the physical geology of our planet. In other words, we have no viable "Flood model" or apparently even beginnings of a model after many years of effort by a number of creationists.

As a result, the task of trying to harmonize Genesis and geology may be akin to generating scientific models and attempting to demonstrate the scientific plausibility of Joshua’s long day or the virgin birth. Most of us realize that such attempts are theologically worthless and scientifically futile since these events are commonly conceded to fall in that ill-defined category of "miraculous," not of the ordinary course of nature. Furthermore, we have precious little, if any, concrete evidence or physical artifacts remaining from these events that could verify or refute our proposed models.

It is commonly conceded in conservative Christian circles that the Noachian Flood must also have been an event of a miraculous nature. Perhaps it is the abundant wealth of potential physical artifacts (the whole surface of the earth) that tempts us to believe we can understand and rationally investigate the inner workings of a miracle. Our demonstrable successes in the area of special creation mainly involve evidence related to the inherent nature of the creation rather than detailed historical events. It is exactly these types of relationships that are likely to be discernible through the veil of the extraordinary occurrence, whereas detailed causal relationships are hopelessly obscured. Romans 1:20 says that it is the "invisible nature of God, namely, His eternal power and deity" that is clearly perceived in the creation, not the de- [10] tailed record of His historical interaction with it. The latter is the subject matter of His special revelation in the Bible.

Science provides us with a mystery concerning the origin of life forms. As Christians, we perceive this as an expression of God’s creative acts and fill in the gaps, so to speak, with creative events. The secular evolutionist, lacking such an alternative, fills in the gaps with his evolutionary theory. Science also provides a seemingly airtight causal description of the earth’s history that finds no evidence for universal floods, long days or virgin births. Should we adopt a similar perspective on all three of these miracles or should we feel that the universal flood is somehow more amenable to scientific analysis?

For completeness, I must raise another question. Do we correctly understand the Bible’s message concerning the earth’s history? This is not a popular question, but if we fail to ask it, we can be justly accused of believing that we have the final word on Biblical interpretation. In fact, if we honestly insist that the Biblical record of earth’s physical history be demonstrated to be in plausible accord with the "facts of science," a reanalysis of our Biblical interpretations is probably inevitable, for the literal creationist model presently leads to an inconsistent stance towards the "facts of science" and I see no indications that this situation will improve in the near future.

There are two important considerations that should shape an evangelical or theological stance toward creation research: (1) the position should be consistent with the Biblical revelation; (2) it should not unduly hamper responsible research efforts to solve problems that arise as a result of creation research. These considerations suggest that we should emphasize those positive points -evidences for creation of life, design in nature, etc.—without tying them to a defense of Flood geology, a defense that is presently inconsistent in its use of scientific data. This inconsistency is evident to knowledgeable persons and can only detract from the value of our positive contributions. We can emphasize the miraculous nature of the Biblical Flood and our reservation at being able to demonstrate its congruence with scientific facts. At the same time, we recognize that this position is not ideal and we are exploring various alternatives. Too often, we feel obliged to evangelize a particular accommodation of scientific evidence with the Biblical account. When it becomes necessary to revise or discard these accommodations, much confusion arises and various people appear to be working at cross-purposes. If, instead, we maintain a more consistently defensible interim position, then we can leave the field of possible accommodations relatively unrestricted as it should be.

Well-intentioned persons have been asking creationist geologists for scientific models that support literal creationism. Scientists should not mislead them by concealing the great problems that presently confront such an effort. I hope that they realize that the scientist’s task may prove impossible due to the inherent nature of the problem.

Notes and References

14. A recent succinct statement of this theory can be found in Coffin, pp. 17-183.

15. The equitable antediluvian climate as usually conceived suggests the existence of a generally lower topographic relief.

16 Illustrations of the geographic distribution of the rock systems can be found in Raymond C. Moore, Introduction to Historical Geology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958); Philip B. King, The Evolution of North America, rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), also provides a good introduction to the geology of this area.