Skip to main content

Deluge Story in Stone

A little throwback this morning, I think. I've been working on a paper for my anthropology class, holding up certain aspects of the Flood geology "hypothesis" (and even that is being far too generous), and one of the sources I found that I thought would be useful is an older book called The Deluge Story in Stone. I picked it up as it purported to be a history of the idea of Flood geology, and indeed it was. But unfortunately it was written by creationists, so their agenda in penning this book (the author is Byron C. Nelson, first published in 1927, if you wanted to know) is in propagating the idea.

Once I realized that the man writing the introduction to the newly-republished edition was none other than the late Henry Morris, grandfather of Flood geology's modern incarnation, everything went downhill from there.

I believe the main point of what little I managed to read was the following; Flood geology, or the idea that the entire geologic column can be explained by the devastation of Noah's Flood of the book of Genesis, was widely accepted before the rise of uniformitarianism and later evolution. But (I hear the author whining), the Flood theory of geology was accepted by lots of smart people before those nasty modern geologists ruined it! I believe he misses the point, though I'm sure he really doesn't know what science is or how it works. The process he laments is exactly the process of science. Bad ideas get replaced with new, better ideas as we gather more evidence. Lots of smart people used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and that maggots spontaneously generated from bread or meat. Both are just as wrong as Flood geology.

Terrible to see so many people continue to cling to the past with this one. The findings of modern geology are much more interesting and, truly, amazing when compared to a myth about an old man on a boat.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...