Flood geology

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is a pseudoscientific attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the Genesis flood narrative, the flood myth in the Hebrew Bible. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the biblical flood, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata.

In the early stages of development of the science of geology, fossils were interpreted as evidence of past flooding. The "theories of the Earth" of the 17th century proposed mechanisms based on natural laws, within a timescale set by the Ussher chronology. As modern geology developed, geologists found evidence of an ancient Earth and evidence inconsistent with the notion that the Earth had developed in a series of cataclysms, like the Genesis flood. In early 19th-century Britain, "diluvialism" attributed landforms and surface features (such as beds of gravel and erratic boulders) to the destructive effects of this supposed global deluge, but by 1830 geologists increasingly found that the evidence supported only relatively local floods. So-called scriptural geologists attempted to give primacy to literal biblical explanations, but they lacked a background in geology and were marginalised by the scientific community, as well as having little influence in the churches.

Creationist flood geology was only supported by a minority of the 20th century anti-evolution movement, mainly in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, until the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb. Around 1970, proponents adopted the terms "scientific creationism" and creation science.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its passages as historically accurate; they use the Bible's internal chronology to place the Genesis flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last 5,000 years.^[4]

Scientific analysis has refuted the key tenets of flood geology.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology.^[10]^[11]^[12] Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines use the scientific method. In contrast, flood geology does not adhere to the scientific method, making it a pseudoscience.^[13]

^ Parkinson 2004, pp. 24–27.
^ Evans 2009 Its supporters were first known as flood geologists. Then, in about 1970, they renamed themselves "scientific creationists" or "young-earth creationists".
^ Numbers 2006, p. 10.
^ Carol A. Hill and Stephen O. Moshier, "Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: A Critique," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 61:2 (June 2009), 100. Retrieved 6 June 2014. Note: This article was electronically published by Lorence G. Collins on his California State University, Northridge webpage, "Articles in Opposition to Creationism". See item No. 17.
^ Young 1995.
^ Isaak 2006.
^ Morton 2001.
^ Isaak 2007, p. 173.
^ Stewart 2010, p. 123.
^ Isaak, Mark. The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.
^ Senter, Phil. "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31:3 (May–June 2011). Printed electronically by California State University, Northridge. Retrieved 7 June 2014.
^ Montgomery 2012.
^ Morrison, David (24 October 2012). "Pseudoscience: A fringe too far". Nature. 490 (7421): 480–481. Bibcode:2012Natur.490..480M. doi:10.1038/490480a. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's 1961 publication The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing) became the foundation of the 'creation science' movement. Like Velikovsky, these authors postulated a catastrophic history of Earth, reinterpreting all geology in terms of a single universal flood, as described in chapters 6–11 of Genesis. They based their conclusions solely on a literal interpretation of scripture, and rejected Velikovsky's naturalist explanations.

[FOOTNOTEParkinson200424–27-1] Parkinson 2004, pp. 24–27.

[2] Evans 2009 Its supporters were first known as flood geologists. Then, in about 1970, they renamed themselves "scientific creationists" or "young-earth creationists".

[FOOTNOTENumbers200610-3] Numbers 2006, p. 10.

[4] Carol A. Hill and Stephen O. Moshier, "Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: A Critique," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 61:2 (June 2009), 100. Retrieved 6 June 2014. Note: This article was electronically published by Lorence G. Collins on his California State University, Northridge webpage, "Articles in Opposition to Creationism". See item No. 17.

[FOOTNOTEYoung1995-5] Young 1995.

[FOOTNOTEIsaak2006-6] Isaak 2006.

[FOOTNOTEMorton2001-7] Morton 2001.

[FOOTNOTEIsaak2007173-8] Isaak 2007, p. 173.

[FOOTNOTEStewart2010123-9] Stewart 2010, p. 123.

[10] Isaak, Mark. The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

[11] Senter, Phil. "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31:3 (May–June 2011). Printed electronically by California State University, Northridge. Retrieved 7 June 2014.

[FOOTNOTEMontgomery2012-12] Montgomery 2012.

[13] Morrison, David (24 October 2012). "Pseudoscience: A fringe too far". Nature. 490 (7421): 480–481. Bibcode:2012Natur.490..480M. doi:10.1038/490480a. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's 1961 publication The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing) became the foundation of the 'creation science' movement. Like Velikovsky, these authors postulated a catastrophic history of Earth, reinterpreting all geology in terms of a single universal flood, as described in chapters 6–11 of Genesis. They based their conclusions solely on a literal interpretation of scripture, and rejected Velikovsky's naturalist explanations.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]