W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
THE OTHER DELUGE
The Flood - Assault by ...
Verbal Pyrotechnics (a fizzer as usual)
in the Notions of November and
the Declarations of December
Robert E. Donaldson in conjunction with Matthew C.G. Donaldson
1. What fizzes ?
2. Exposure to the Realities...
the ark, the date, the deluge.
3. The Tide of Thought -
The Naturalistic Hypothesis... sinks without ark.
4. Meditation long overdue -
for the journalistically oppressed ear.
Note that SMR refers to the work, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, available on this page.
1. What fizzes ?
In The Adelaide Advertiser, November 29, 1996 we find the sort of heading which has - shall we say - a certain vogue in parts of the Press. It is this: "Ark wars: God versus Ian."
Perhaps this is a reflection of the extent of the confusion which tends to reign just as heavily as it ever rained in the Flood. Is it really true that a Melbourne Professor who has, it seems, here lost hold on the restraint necessary in such openings to the distant past, is challenging God; and that a judge will decide whether he wins or loses that war...?
If the Advertiser, however, has the position accurately reported, then the Professor has indicated that 'Creationism' is 'pseudo-scientific nonsense', coming up with the rather normal pathological prescription in defiance of freedom of education and scientific method in this sphere at such times. And what is this? that it ought not to be taught in schools.
We shall have to hope that the Professor was not so rash as that; but it is quite conceivable that he was. Let us, purely for argument's sake, assume he really was guilty of such ill-advised and rash words. It might be good in simple short categories, to rehearse in the light of THAT MAGNIFICENT ROCK, and THE SHADOW OF A MIGHTY ROCK, some of more conspicuous errors: that is, in summary form.
1. This academic seems to be confusing creationism with a view of a particular Mr Roberts, that a certain structure in the vicinity of Mt Ararat is in fact the Ark of historic fame. Why he should do this is unclear, unless it be that form of intemperate haste which seizes on an example of some viewpoint and instantly attributes this view to the whole school or position on which there may be a desire to release a VERBAL DELUGE. It is certainly an easy approach; but where it is made, it is logically indefensible, and really a waste of time. Law suits and libels and the rest of it can merely subtract from the gravity of the situation. It is a matter, really of logic and scientific method.
In fact, what is probably the largest and best-publicised creationist group in the land is Creation Science in Queensland. Some months ago, it subjected the position of Mr Roberts on the topic: Is the structure in the vicinity of Mr Ararat in fact the Ark? and in what appeared a rather scholarly and thorough way, it rejected the proposition on the present evidence. Prima facie it did not appear to measure up to the demands of the data. Categorically the view of Mr Roberts was rejected on a large number of elements of data and research.
The concept therefore that what a certain Mr Roberts is and has been saying represents either a) creationism or b) the majority of creationists, or c) the largest creationism body in Australia, would seem unscholarly, misdirected and misleading. To be misleading is most unnecessary in such a situation as this. Let the truth be adequate. It will do very well.
2. The Professor goes on, according at least to The Advertiser report (Dec. 26, 1996), to designate whatever it may be that he conceives to be 'creationism', rather a vexed point it would appear, as 'codswallop', a term not illustrious for logical clarity, but apparently meaning that it is inadequate in terms of data. It may of course mean that it is philosophically not to his palate, but according at least to the report, he seems to have something rather different in mind: that is, assuming he is analysing his emotions, which are certainly entangled in what seem rather imprecise statements.
The point here is not the invective steam involved. It is the unclarity about what he has in mind. It seems almost, if the Report be a just one, a sort of emotional tissue, rather than anything accurately defined, clearly understood or derived in a scholarly way by examining the whole evidence in view. This is the second apparent failure in scholarship, so that it is not encouraging for one interested in reality.
3. Is 'creationism' either a) the view that Mr Roberts idea of the Ark is accurate; or is it . . . b) a view that Noah had but little time to collect the animals (a "short time" is the phrase used in the Report).
In fact, Noah most probably, with the then current technology, did not build the ark in a few days... Contemporary models appear to be made rather frequently; indeed in Korea there is a major academic building dedicated to just such a concept, in a land where apparently large numbers of Ph.D.'s are creationists. A reasonable construction might suggest some years for the historic building and equipping of the ark, perhaps many.
Just as the first point above is a gross generalisation and denigratory misrepresentation of FACT, so the second one is a gross intrusion into the data of the Biblical text. It cannot stand there; again, it is pure fiction.
Thus Noah is stated to be 500 years old in Genesis 5:32, after which we come to divine judgment relating to the the gross and almost contemporary-seeming conditions in the world of that time (6:5): then to the result for many(6:7), with the exception of the few delivered(6:8). Accordingly: deducting from Noah's stated age at death (9:29, 950 years), the 350 he statedly lived after the flood (9:28), we gain a flood advent age of around 600 or 599 allowing for the duration of the flood itself.
That leaves around 100 years in reserve between the pre-flood age statement and the flood advent age. Indeed Noah's age at the flood advent is actually stated at 600 (7:6). This leaves a tidy century or so as the possible period for preparation of ark and animals, for the technical aspects of which, see the next section.
The Professor's concept of haste, of speed, of rush in the matter of preparation for the flood on the part of Noah is worse than caricature. It exhibits either an ignorance or else an intrusion into the data of the position that men of rational thought are to investigate, the ark of Noah, which is not merely acutely misleading; it is also extraordinarily interesting. After all, the text in question is a very few short pages, not a tiring challenge to long industry to read... Its statements as we have seen on this topic, are simple and arithmetical. The text then, allows for any time of preparation up to one century. Haste? this does not seem a very precise exposition of the textual ... data!
Hurry and a time up to approximately one century seem rather ill-adapted terms for such a description. Indeed, if we are not to be describing what we are talking about, what is the use of talking! The time modules in textual progression here are large. Such oversight of textual provisions is of great interest because it is a testimony in itself that things so simple could be so distorted by scholarship on the warpath.
In fact, if this is not war at the conceptual level, what is it? And why is it? The Biblical statement in Ephesians 4:18ff. and Romans 1 must always be considered in such a case. It would explain it, and be verified in it, prima facie. But this is what you find in the Bible; the more you attack it, the more it analyses you while rebutting the attack. This is both what you would expect of the word of God, and one's constant experience in considering man's relationship to it.
There is however another aspect of great impact. Time and haste are not the way God treats vast issues. The case is far otherwise.
God is not lacking in longsuffering, and indeed this whole Age since Christ's resurrection is one of what is Biblically called 'longsuffering' (II Peter 3:9), while the Gospel goes to the end of the earth. It would seem not only an arbitrary imposition, but exceedingly strange if God had acted in moments or a few days without warning. Since this is not stated, the allegation could become an attack, gratuitous and lax, on the very character of God.
It might if possible still stranger perhaps, if the Ark were rolled out in a short time. In textual matters, it is best to keep to the text. Otherwise one ends by discussing one's thoughts under the pretext of their belonging to someone else. This is inaccurate and a sort of negative plagiarism.
4. It appears then there is here yet another confusion; and confusion does not normally make for much in the way of clarity or accuracy. The Professor appears to attribute, for reasons which may only be surmised, the thing called creationism to the views of Mr Roberts, the book called the Bible to the views held by himself on what is a matter of timing, and then to criticise the view so derived for whatever it is he feels apt.
All this of course is beside the point. It is neither a) the view of Mr Roberts which is mainline creationism; nor is it b) the view of the Professor on what would appear to him, which is what the Bible is saying. It is in general best to let people make clear what they mean, without speaking for them in their absence.
It really is a question of what the record in view, the Bible does say, and of the options that leaves; not of what someone says he thinks it is saying, when this is nowhere written. We are not here dealing with impressions but with statements and textual data.
5. Again, if the Advertiser report be accurate, it seems that an Anglican rector supporting the Professor proclaims that "what the creation scientists and others purport to be science is, in fact, not science but is a practical interpretation of scriptures and it is an interpretation not shared by the mainline churches." This Rector, we are advised, is to serve as a witness for the Professor. Perhaps they will diverge ? Otherwise, we have several further errors here:
If you wanted to differ from some view in this muddle or heap of views, you would have to specify which you meant, and then itemise what it held, show what your authority was, and then applying logic with care, show that those particular propositions lacked in some vital way in terms of logic or data, in terms of scientific method. You might then, in meeting these criteria, feel enabled to exhibit a superior way.
This however is quite precisely what, again according to report, the Professor has failed to do. The muddle is becoming quite grotesque. It appears more like a political scene, a jungle warfare than either science or logic. What more?
6. "The creationists' target is children who don't have the knowledge", is a further statement attributed to the Professor. Actually in South Australia, Dr Gish, an eminent Ph.D. in bioscience from Berkeley University in California, challenged the Education Department people of the day to defend their remarkably outrageous statements in the Circular of January 1988, in some ways like those of the Professor, at Flinders University in a debate. The writers of this militant imposition on school children, from the Government, however, did not arrive. (See That Magnificent Rock, Ch.8.)
At Adelaide University for months, a standing invitation was given by a Christian Minister (incidentally, one from what might well be called a mainline denomination) to all students and Staff to rebut in the lecture situation provided, a certain logical presentation on the spot. And that presentation? It was this: that the Bible is the only authentic statement to mankind of God Almighty. Some tried, none succeeded. Opportunity was given for months. It is still available.
The point was then made that Christianity, in terms of its unquestionable Biblical basis in doctrine, should not be derided or rejected in terms of reason, at least, since none could overthrow this presentation. Now as one can see, the opportunity is given to do so in a Web situation. We await someone to attempt this thing. It has never been done before. One reason is simple: it is the word of God Himself, and He is very much alive. The neglect of this circumstance provides unenviable layers of confusion which are presented in review, in SMR, and are found in practice.
The Bible having been shown true (SMR Chs.1, 3, 8-10), continues in all dimensions to evidence that truth in all fields at all times; and as it does this, it bears witness to what is a living faith, not only verified and validated but exemplified and utilised.
The attribution of such motives to creation scientists therefore, by the Professor according to report, has thus a number of further fallacies, which do begin to appear rather to abound:
i) another rash generalisation. DO creation scientists as a category of people in fact have such an aim? That would seem to be a proposition requiring evidence and to need justification. Things like data in sufficient breadth, covering enough schools of thought to make it other than misrepresentation would seem in order.
ii) another ultra-evidential intrusion. IS the aim to reach the ignorant before they can understand? Or is it to reach those pitilessly propagandised with the full weight of State authority over many years, when - at least according to the Circular to Principals of January 1988 in S.A. - they are not equipped to deal logically with the input pushed! Liberty for thought before the highly officially rewarded obfuscation sets in, with frequent virtual monopoly, blared in the ears of myriads of victims, seems appropriate mercy. It is also sound education, and part of what one might envisage as a Humane Race. Which is that however?
WHO, in fact, is doing all the propagandising with STATE FUNDS in almost UNLIMITED TIME, and who is objecting to any balance in the matter with such things as facts and logic. In one State body, now a University, challenge was offered on this imbalance at the level of lecturing, but in response came no ground for the exclusion, no argument for the position: merely this sort of convenient oppression.
After all, it is as we have seen, the view of Professor Tom Barnes, Physics Professor at El Paso University in Texas in his time there, that the Bible is right about the 3 most basic laws of physics. (Cf. SMR pp. 329-332H.)
Since as pointed out in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock and in That Magnificent Rock, this phenomenal performance is not matched on the secular front, which does not boast such historical consistency and accuracy over several millenia, but is rather inclined to change in decades: it is impressive the more.
The fact is that these 3 laws are WHAT IS IN ACCORD WITH OBSERVATION, and that the various time-does-it theories lack one thing, the power to see it done. The Biblical view is that it is NOT observable because it WAS DONE. In terms of observation this is constantly attested.
The metaphysical and naturalistic views to the contrary, however, are attested in chief by the failure of anything to do it, or to show it, or of any law to this effect to be advanced that stands either in itself or in terms of the rest of the laws derived form observation. This is really quite an appalling record for something which is being taught to children. It is taught almost constantly; and now, it seems, it should be taught without any compunction, as void of gentility of process as it is of aptitude of performance. It is far better to teach them the facts, as a commencement!
The land is already rocked with this intransigeant monopoly mauling its young, as irrational as destructive, as indefensible as gross, as reductionist as irrational, basking in myths, lavished with desire, like dead meat to flies. Its effects are just, given its abuse both of logic and of the young. The educational folly of its security, lest any should challenge it even in S.A. State schools, with a free hand, is now, it seems not sufficient and such belligerent bias is to be extended ? If, however, it is nirvana to logic, it is not balm to youth (cf. SMR pp.197, 226-235, 308-310, 620-623, 660-670, 696-706, 809, 843-844, 999-1002C, and Chs.1-3, 8, 10).
Chapter 8 of That Magnificent Rock deals in detail with the mind-suppressing mental drugs of method and procedure employed in S.A. in particular (Chapter 1 more generally); and while it is undoubtedly in the forefront of anti-intellectual oppression in its refusals of school debate and its freedoms, and rejection of equality of teaching skill for all views evidentially and logically demanding to be considered in a secular institution: it is not at all alone in direction and in trend.
This present Report to which we have referred, therefore,
may as well be employed in looking carefully at the situation. It will give
us opportunity to look at some of the general issues. To these we now look.
2. Exposure to the Realities: The Ark, the Date and the Deluge
a) The Ark
i) First, is it still around ?
As to the whereabouts of the Ark - a point central in this news item and seemingly the immediate cause of the volcanic seeming verbal outburst, the anti-Biblical inundation to which we are referring: if it has endured at all in these 3 to 4 millenia, there would be two considerations to ponder at once.
I) It would be of simple scientific interest - its shape, its capacity, its wood, its design characteristics and so forth.
2) The amazing providence which would have preserved it after so long a time. Whole cities arise and fall more than once in such a time
Now it is true that people such as the Frenchman Navarra and his son have given reports of sightings. In 1955 came one of Navarra's repeated assaults on this question in the region of Mt Ararat. He is noted to have returned with hundreds of photographs (and in his case, wood from two expeditions, 1955 and 1969, reported to relate to a large structure) to support their sighting; and the dating of the wood considered integral to the structure, indicated it was ancient.
Other sightings from air and land, and a whole region of legendary and continued association with the ark, or something deemed to be it, exists in this area. Fernand Navarra's "The Noah's Ark Expedition" gives detail of some of the long continued interest which has arisen in the midst of diverse indications which seem to captivate.
It is possible that the concept that the glaciation or snow and ice fields - in which some reports have placed the ark - is correct; that it has jutted in and out of some cold area to become partially or more completely visible; that the intensely dangerous conditions, in which rocks can fall like meteorites in their feeling of thrust and suddenness, may have interfered as have political difficulties in an area so close to Russia, and so sensitive strategically. It is possible that an amazing preservation has occurred, aided by ice.
It may be that there has been confusion more than once; it is possible that this is the case now. As noted, in the affair of the Roberts interpretation, the Creation Science Foundation in particular has published earlier a long, careful seeming repudiation of this particular case.
Under the conditions of these frozen dynamics and mobile storms at the heights where some have considered the ark rested, and with the fiery debates going on in evidence assessment, the hot and cold continuum which seems to emerge is hardly surprising. Much more surprising would be the preservation of the ark anywhere after such a journey in such a world at such a time, through such times to the present. We shall see. Historic interest and local tradition is strong. Further confirmation appears necessary.
In fact, the possibilities, short of an open sighting for all, of a tangible form, need careful scientific investigation, not controversial over-generalised spectaculars. The case is of great interest, especially since the 1917 sighting report, to which others have been added. It does not however appear at present that the data is sufficient; though more expert analysis may yet show that it is. To be premature in dismissal of the general possibility is as misguided as it is to be premature in acceptance of a particular possibility.
Put differently, assuming all past reports are discounted, it does not appear the present data are sufficient. While their cumulative significance is substantial, it is not incredible that to date it is uncertain. If so, however, it would seem that some reports at least were deliberately contrived, a view which may seem somewhat extreme. Nevertheless, sobriety is of the essence in such matters, and further attention to detail not only in the present case, perhaps, but certainly in others may be as productive as further searching, in reaching a conclusion as to whether a truly amazing preservation may happen to have occurred.
The ark, then, if you will excuse the metaphor, is merely the cream on the cake. After so long a time, it may be a little stale, and it would be truly remarkable if it has persisted.
ii) Second, does it contain conceptual difficulties ?
As for the ark in action, the world-wide flood and biogenetic diversity following this, John Woodmorappe gives a seasoned, thorough and informative cover that is rife with ancient citations and modern calculations. In this he has rather an edge on mere unscientific fulminations which arise volcanically in a flood of their own.
His work is called "Noah's Ark, A Feasibility Study", and it is what is says. Usefully, he supplies some 77 pages of literature references to supplement his very numerous quotations.
It has the distinctive feature of acutely rebutting the amazingly numerous negative and fallacious claims, and substituting for them the well-backed scientific hypothesis, in facets very numerous and frequently founded on direct data derived from special fields and specialists, ancient and modern. In this respect his work at times appears almost encyclopedic. There have of course been other works in this area, and Morris and Whitcomb have made their own contributions many years ago in The Genesis Flood, while Josh McDowell and Don Stewart have given useful orientation in their work, The Creaton, Ch. 9 (1980). We are not dealing without academic credentials, logic or evidence in these matters, but with conscientious analysis.
Woodmorappe in particular provides a fascinating and rather extensive section on genetic considerations in the light of that significant segment of review known as evidence. As such, it is refreshing in its detail and lack of inhibition. Problems in this area are very hard to sustain in the light of this; and in questions of history, this is of enormous significance. Let dictators rule politics; evidence must be used in seeking to understand history.
As to Woodmorappe: the vigour, contemporaneity of scholarship and scope of the work make it rather fun to read. The frequency with which he has to correct simply inaccurate or even wild notions put forward as scientific, abundantly verifies the unscientific nature of much critical negativity in this field. He has an additional advantage of frequently consulting the text of the Bible, and hence of accuracy in dealing with the matter in view. This of course is commendable and, it must be acknowledged, normal in reviewing in a scientific manner what is the case put forward. It is by no means always found however when it comes to the intense eruptions which often relate to Biblical assertions.
While these detailed results have the effect of verifying the ark position in battle, it also exemplifies the Biblical principal of hostility to the word of God in general, and the predicted intemperate rejection of the flood assigned to the period of history in which the numerous criteria assigned, now current, were to co-exist with just such anti-flood vehemence. (See II Peter 3:3-6, Romans 1:18-20, Ephesians 4:17-18; SMR Chs. 8-9 on prophecy.)
As - with these criteria positioning history in the way indicated in the above work - new and final judgment draws near, this makes even the flood a comparatively (but not absolutely!) minor thing. Symptomatic of this procedure, the contra-evidential emphatic character of the rejection of the flood, often found, has that strenuous irrationality which rather reminds one of someone who doesn't desire a necessary operation. (SMR Chs.1,8,10.)
b) The Date
As far as dates are concerned, this is a question where a few billion years here or there are disposed of merrily, so long as the gradualistic fairy-tale talk (i.e. that involving the myth of organic evolution, q.v. SMR Index) is indulged.
Such an actual case is noted scientifically, in Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1992. For a discussion of dates, see SMR Ch.2, esp. pp.235-252N, S1-S34, 421ff, also Index - Dating; and Models and Marvels in the present work, section E. As has been indicated in SMR at the relevant place, the only honest answer to the question of initial dates is this: that they are scientifically wholly unknown, unless you deem it knowledge to use models which pre-suppose some or all of what you set out to prove. Then you say - If we are right, we are right; only one must observe that the first condition, the protasis, is often carelessly omitted.
A more vain and vainglorious procedure, it would be difficult to imagine. Distinguished British Professor E.H. Andrews, whose specialty contacts this field extensively, provides some fascinating exposures of the situation in his FROM NOTHING TO NATURE and GOD, SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION. SMR Index points to some of these.
Returning however to decisive data, we may note that it may easily be shown Biblically, by comparing genealogies, that major figures are often selected like major peaks on a mountain track, leading upwards, for guidance. "Son of" can just as well mean "grandson" and further back: thus Christ is "the Son of David" in the popular eye (Matthew 15:22, 22:41-46, 21:9).
While this by no means gives us unlimited licence, and the context will have its own precincts, yet the precise date from generations is no more derivable from the Bible, for the date of Noah, than it is from science. It is true of course that considerably more hope may be entertained for comparatively late things such as the flood in view, scientifically, but as shown in SMR, there are questions both in performance and in theory which prevent certainty here.
Biblically, there is no reason by which we could compel the context to give us a date of 5000 for man's creation, rather than 10,000 in view of the earlier point made; and it might be that dates as far distant as 20,000 could be in view. This would constitute a very considerable assumption however (and in such a setting there have to be some assumptions, thus limiting date-specificity but not date order of magnitude). Further, as to the flood, we are getting rather near to Abraham's time, when great detail in generations and clear sequence is applicable, so that the flood date may be closely deduced, for its part.
As shown in SMR Ch.2 (esp. pp.246ff., and see Index), and its Cosmological Extension, there are many things that undercut a long process on earth; though there is nothing a short history precludes in the way of evidence. If it were possible, Bible apart, one would be constrained to an early date for creation rather than the other option, since, as noted in SMR, the difficulties of dealing with the young-date option are not great, while those attached to the other view are seemingly insuperable. This in turn would compel me to avoid any rational gradualistic construction and hypothesis, even if generic logic did not require such a step.
c) The Deluge
As for the Ark and allied topics, there have been many treatises on this in works such as The Long War Against God (Morris), and those already mentioned. Questions of postulated many millions of years of rock 'time' being accounted for at an average deposition rate of a fraction of a millimeter, when large masses of crowded, sometimes large fossils populate the stratum, such as John Mackay reveals in his 1994 video, Jehovah's Park; of vast embalmings of hundreds of species often whole, as at Lincoln County, Wyoming, and the frequently found tree structures slanting through several 'ages': these things are not answered by bluster.(Cf. Professor Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p.1209.)
Similarly, analyses of The Grand Canyon and such uplifts and the 'problem' of numerous disconformities and vast unconformities using something like magic apparently to conform to the need of the gradualistic theory (e.g. The Genesis Flood, Morris and Whitcomb, pp. 157ff., 189-193, 207ff., 423ff., Scientific Creationism Henry Morris, pp. 112ff., Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1991, Vol.5, Part 2, pp. 154ff.) ... merely illustrate the disquieting reluctance realistically to face data.
Whole vast plains can be 'formed' in ways readily related to flood, but for which contrivances to the contrary must be sought. The Colorado plateau of around one quarter of a million square miles, the Tibetan of nearer three quarters of a million, have been elevated miles, with marine creatures mutely speaking of the origin. Approximately horizontal layers do not suggest numerous, complex, combined operations, any more than the marine fossils suggest geological stasis. Fast deposition in summary fashion with major upthrust in comparative simplicity provide, prima facie, the normal flood scenario with a straightforward boost, and any uniformitarian contortion with an abrasive gravamen. It is time to look at the road rather than be mesmerised at the ever changing face of a mental map to which all must be conformed.
Geological theories, hypotheses, flashing about like lady's fashions in the high times, moving to this 'advanced' but unfortunately headily extreme theory to that, are a matter of history. Torrents of untimely pride seem to obscure the necessity of close reasoning in the setting of fashions at times, making the misled masses follow the line, more often than conscience would like to see. The most comprehensively adequate, precisely defensible, naturally exemplifiable hypothesis, if not in observation, then in verified procedure or law must be followed with astute watchfulness. This consideration brings us to our next point.
Abnormal and multitudinous assemblages of animals in life not harmonious, but in death crammed together in elevated situations, in terms of the now residual fossil evidence: these and such matters have exercised some of the greatest of geologists such as Cuvier and Agassiz. Similarly the vast and deep debris in several European fields, attesting enormous catastrophe rather than orderly procedure, was one of the grounds on which the abundant researcher, Nilsson, rejected with horror the whole Darwinian concept of gradualism as a professionally impelling illusion. The abundance, en bloc proliferation and suddenness of 'arrival' of multiple sub-varieties of creatures was another.
Nilsson covers varied materials in some considerable depth in his 1200 plus pages, both in mental and geological survey. His writes with something like incandescence, coming from years of frustration and the revolution of thought which the data demanded of a reluctance borne of habit. Here he casts aside with continued scorn and constant data various uniformitarian models as ludicrously inadequate. Thus on pp.1202-1212 within the Summary of his work, Synthetische Artbildung, we find cohesive and consecutive argument, constantly citing deposits and chemistry, concerning immense deluging of a catastrophic nature, spread broadly in his investigations of European deposits.
Thus we find on p.1208, this sense of outrage: "The immense masses of animal fossils which may form seams of 10-15 meters thickness (e.g. Aegir in the Ruhr carbon) have been explained by transgressions of the sea. It is impossible to understand why a gradual rise of the sea over the land should result in such a massing of animals. The freely swimming animals need not gather together, and the sedentary cannot do it. The tidal wave collects them, throws them on to the land and freezes them".
Of interest in this field is the finding of Creation Research of Queensland, relating to "the worst flood this century" in parts of Washington State, USA, February 1996. February field work by this body revealed a fascinating result, which in the Vol.10, No.1 issue of Creation News, has a photographic depiction, with the report is that at least 150 layers of flood deposits were created in that one week. It is always, as with Dr Steve Austin's work at Mt St Helens, effective to consider experimentally or observationally what actually happens. The superabundant deposits frequently appear admirably fitted for John Mackay's comment that depicted is not "a record of life on the earth, but a history of death". Let us however revert to the work of Professor Nilsson.
On p. 1209, we have: "According to the stratification in different geological epochs the reef-forming corals should once have been distributed all over the world, also in the coolly intemperate seas. This, already, is an astounding thing to assume. It is still more remarkable, however, that these corals are found mainly in calcareous sediments, even when they form reefs. The recent corals are distinctly dependent upon clear water if they are to thrive and form reefs." Again, says Nilsson (op.cit., p. 1208), "sedimentary traces have been found of waves and of the treads of large terrestrial animals as well as of animal faeces in haut-relief. All these 'writings in the sand' are completely inexplicable by the theory of a sedimentation in water, and they have so remained until this day."
He cites materials from the other side of the earth found in botanical deposits, mixed up fragments in profusion, stems without branches or roots, showing signs of wear and tear, and notes: "Everything indicates long transportation in water. It is absolutely impossible that stems, branches and leaves should have lived at different times, and every thought of autochtony and evolution must be relinquished in the face of these crushing facts." The matter is neither merely local nor is it gradual.
Indeed, he states (p.1210, op.cit.), there has been "appearance and disappearance of whole floras and faunas," and this in the face of an astonishing fixity of many observable species, allegedly for hundreds of millions of years.
In fact, sudden innovation, sudden desolation, rapid, enormous and dramatic transportation amidst extensive sedimentation of colossal proportions, these are the facts which this frustrated academic explosively acknowledges, amidst the incoherent fantasies of uniformitarianism. This is no effusion from religious grounds; if he had held to these, the facts would have been singularly accommodated. No, it is on the contrary, a profusion in terms of ineradicable evidence from one who is forced to postulate sudden arrivals and departures, immense inundations and to note highly differentiated initial profusion of new arrivals to boot! After years of resistance, at last he came to insistence on observational reality.
Nilsson, in this enormous work, is enlightening both geologically and psychologically, as he traces his earlier years of academic trauma, trying to defend the indefensible, before he accepted the evidential realities. (Cf. SMR pp.108-111, 230, 245-246, 422H, 614.) His exceedingly detailed presentations deserve excogitation, require thought; his multiplied data demand an hypothesis embracive enough to cover them all: all approaches scientifically must diligently account for everything in the most coherent and comprehensive manner. Nilsson's explosive reaction, pointing out massive evidence of sudden DESTRUCTION and CONSTRUCTION alike is an index to subterranean forces not only geological but spiritual, which have long been at work in this area.
Ephemeral fantasies have replaced realities on account of obscurantist hypotheses which displace the facts, lest the truth should appear (cf. John 12:37-41). But it is there; and many are those eminent academics who confess with desperation, frustration, devastation what has been perfectly explained from the first, by the word of God. It is simple fact that it endures; it is never broken, but breaks as a hammer breaks rock - "Is not my word like a fire, says the Lord; and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:18,28-29).
Many more are those researchers and scholars who by persistent endurance and evidential detail express their singular satisfaction with the word which alike created the universe and then depicted its core history in terms both majestic and consistently attested (see SMR Index, verification, p. 1343, and God - His words, SMR Index-d). That history in numerous vital respects is even preserved in that other territory, the testimony of the races (cf. SMR p. 1026ff.).
It is in fact in the area of the multi-racial, indeed enormous if slightly varied, and sometimes elaborated accounts of the inundation of civilisation, world-wide flood, that research has been done for so long, and with such variety and detail, that its dismissal can become, if possible, an even more dramatic exercise in avoidance techniques or damage control.
The emphasis on sin, sentence of judgment, means - flood on man, means of deliverance, floating structure, small number of those delivered, terrestrial inundation is very much a core content, in general.
Such accounts - some more embellished than others with various imageries - are so pervasive as to require careful thought. In this, their extent, they rather resemble the sedimentary deposits said to cover a large proportion of the earth's more superficial layers (TheGenesis Flood, pp. 189-193, 270). The collections of ill-assorted, and often compressedly multiform creatures, not only in fossilised assemblages in higher regions, but in sedimentary profusion and broad bands in deep strata, similarly attest the catastrophes which famed geologists Agassiz and Cuvier, before Nilsson, so notably emphasised.
How great is the knowledge which can make philosophical petroleum out of the bulky facts by a sort of vehement compression! as if the history of scientific thought and theory had been entirely forgotten. It is however expression not compression, precision in scientific method, not defiance which is in order. If God is disregarded contrary to all reason, how much more must those who are not God be required to conform to the bar of reason. When, as shown in SMR Chs.1, 3 reason itself depends for validity on God, then the scope of our contemporary inundation becomes even more apparent.
It is a barren belligerence which seeks to exclude what is dominantly intrusive in whole fields of evidence, as if knowledge had suddenly descended, alone and ex-God, upon the pundits of philosophy who, void of logical defence (SMR Chs.1, 3, 10), have extension works in what is sometimes called science. The Bible as always has it right in making the necessary distinction: there is indeed science, which rejoices in scientific method, valid and supportable logic, and its use in presenting valid knowledge; and there is 'science falsely so-called'. The conjunction of these two was often apparent in the Middle Ages through ignorance; and the same occurs at this level frequently now, through desire.
Patient work by many scientists however who, with correct logic, as has been repeatedly shown in our Library, reject the gradualistic, naturalistic hypothesis, continually resolves problems of minute character, as of more extensive kind. Thus for example, the footprints found in the lower regions of the Grand Canyon have been investigated with fascinating laboratory care, with some relevant simulation of conditions for comparison and study.
It has been found that these indicate, if data are to be followed as now available, creatures moving continually against a water force which they were seeking to overcome.( See Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 15, 1992, pp. 47ff., No.1.) The disassembling of contrary hypothesis in this case appears as a work of meticulous patience and observant care. It is this that is needed, in the normal way of science properly so called. The little feet like the giant testimony of the strata above, do not cease to speak. (For an illustration including predictive, commercial consequences, see op.cit.Vol.10, 1996, Part 3, pp. 373ff.; and for further examples of relevant, rewarding and patient probing, Vol.8, Part 1, 194, pp. 11ff., 51ff..)
The Melbourne Professor then, seems to be grasping at straws, if one follows the evidence available on this topic; and this is far more dangerous even than an ark, in the inundation of facts which confront us. What, after all, made the Ark safe, other than its verified sensational stability (Woodmorappe, op.cit., p. 54), is the divine blessing which accompanies at all times the truth which God sees fit to reveal: this stands so stably that it is never upset, merely ploughing on through the oceans of time with jutting prow.
But let us revert to the deceitfulness of naturalism; it is a leaven and has its victims. For more detail in this, we turn to the Epilogue to Ch.8 of That Magnificent Rock. At that point, it concludes an analysis of the S.A. atrocity towards youth, in a situation where we were looking at the "Secular Missionary Propaganda Putsch". The Epilogue is pursuing an analysis often made in these works, and itself relates to an Endnote provided earlier in Chapter 8, presented below for convenience, as a prelude. The hyperlinked epilogue relating to this Endnote, forms part of this presentation.
This hyperlink material at Epilogue, above, constitutes for us:
3. The Tide of Thought -
The Naturalistic Hypothesis... sinks without ark.
Finally, this hyperlink excursion
to the Epilogue performed, we return and proceed to our next item. (P.S. June
2000: On this: you may find interest also, in
Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming ... Chs. 4, 5, 6 and
Spiritual Refreshings for the Digital Millenium Chs. 13 and 16, with
Stepping out for Christ Chs. 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10.)
4. News Meditation
The simple fact is that man in the pride and arrogance of the flesh, labours with an endemic disease from which only Christ can rescue him, as the Bible teaches.
He tries many things.
Addendum inserted April, 1997:
Also of note in this latter article is a statement attributed to the Anglican rector noted earlier, reportedly a lecturer on creationism over 10 years. According to this, he considers that "what the creation scientists and others purport to be science is, in fact... an interpretation not shared by mainline churches."
Creation scientists, like Anglican rectors, vary considerably in what they teach - witness, for one example, the near split in the denomination over women in priesthood, at Sydney site... It is therefore rather hard to know to what he refers; but it would seem likely that he holds that fiat creationism by the word of God, as Biblically stated, is not the current "interpretation" for mainline denominations.
Mainline denominations vary too, over years and centuries and places, and are no criterion of Biblical truth at any one time or in any one nation. For "interpretation" allegations, see the Biblical facts in SMR pp. 482-498, and 179-190 et al.. The confusion has often been noted between two things:
a) what a document teaches and
b) what it ought to teach if its author had possessed the advantages in the education, cultural conformism etc. of its 'assessor' ... of whoever it is that is currently assessing it. Thus the authority of the Bible is often confused with questions of interpretation, education and self-satisfaction with a current culture; and interpretation is often confused with the sort of action which the US Courts allegedly take re the Constitution, giving an acceptable meaning in terms of the ... development of thought.
The durability of 'science' is only too easily demonstrated by referring back to text books on it dated 50 years ago. It is its method which is incomparably more important; and it is to this that reference is extensively made in SMR and That Magnificent Rock, with fascinating results.
What the document known as the Bible, actually says, in context on this topic, and reflects repeatedly and unambiguously in all allied contexts is as noted in the works just named, and on the evidence there cited.
To revert, however, to the allegation about mainline denominations, to whatever extent that may be important (for example, before the Reformation, it would mean one thing, and after it, very much another).
The Lutheran denomination is perhaps allowable as "mainline". It has been around a while and has been heard of ? Its President had occasion to clarify a point in December 15, 1989. He stated that 'Lutheran clergy are NOT happy with "a developed theory of evolution"'. He cited the 1972 statement of the General Synod of the Lutheran body concerned, adding that the Lutheran Church of Australia "still holds to that Statement" - one of 3 pages.
He proceeded to give more detail to the point, affirming in this context: "Creation ex nihilo - a creation from nothing - as a six-day work on the part of God", and the "creation of first man, Adam, and then woman". Also noted was "the Fall through an act of disobedience and unbelief". Creation versus evolution as Biblically declared, is here clearly attested; from nothing explicitly; as is the order of man and woman. There seems little here to suggest a trade-in of Biblical declarations for some other kind, alleged in some subtle way to be "interpretation". In fact, there is an explicit counter-indication against "a developed theory of evolution".
Alas, as in the "science" to which organic evolutionists appeal, the evidence does not support the claim made - this time, re mainline denominations. After all, we were not told what "mainline churches" hold, itself a generalisation; but the reference was to "the" mainstream churches.
The Presbyterian Church of Australia could also be consulted. Possibly their Old Testament Professor at Box Hill seminary might have some clarification available; or their parallel Professor in Brisbane? Certainly, it might prove difficult to find that the concept of fiat creationism (God said, it happened in terms of the correlation of word and act in Genesis and elsewhere) is rejected there. However research would be in order before making a finding, would it not ? Perhaps the Rector who made the generalisation has DONE this research ? if so, it would be good to have him share his report notes, achieved as he proceeded in his tests.
Clearly, it is necessary to have evidence for one's statements, whether to the effect that when God made man out of the dust of the ground, in the presence of the animals, He really made him out of something else; or that Jesus, though "the truth", was manipulating the facts in referring to the Genesis statement in a binding manner in Matthew 19; or that mainstream denominations believe such and such about creation.
Perhaps, too, the diocese of Sydney and Moore College in particular could be contacted, for what they might say concerning the views of "Anglicanism". It would seem at least to me that they are not a diminutive or insignificant part of the Anglican establishment. Perhaps we could have the privilege of the result of the research into this field. Oh, my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, I am sure, would not discredit fiat creationism, but would affirm this ex-evolution altogether, as the means of establishing kinds. We are bound to the Bible as entirely authoritative on truth, and it has many categorical statements on creation throughout, without the least ambiguity, as shown in SMR.
Perhaps we could, indeed, return to the evidence, altogether (e.g. as on SMR 145ff., 179ff., and Ch.2 with its Supplement , and Ch. 4, Extension E, with pp. 422E-W, and That Magnificent Rock Chs.7-8), and end this dispute quite simply. Scientific method is limited, but its findings here are not unclear when the method is followed.
The Bible and "science" - actually scientists - do entirely agree in the case of many of their most notable exponents; and entirely disagree in the case of others. Many of the most creative scientists the world has ever had have been creationists. In fact, scientists on this point are as variable as the evidence is clear, on the creation of kinds in the world as equally in the Bible; and inadequate in science, on the dates for this, to the extent that some of the parameters are philosophical only, others assumption only; though with many parameters the case even here also appears both straightforward and for a young earth.
But there! in this world, that - the evidential reality, it is not always convenient. As to the logical necessity, see SMR Chs.1,3,5,10...