Science in Christian Perspective
Letters to the Editor
Pro and Con van de Fliert
From: JASA 22 (March 1970: 35-38.
First, let me congratulate you on the tremendous Journal ASA for September and
a general improvement in ASA over the past year or so. Particularly,
van de Fliert's
article and Garrett Hardin's article with comments.
David L. Dye
1608 Ilaiues Place NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
I especially appreciated van de Fliert's article. I find about as little virtue
in presenting arguments to establish the infallibility of the Bible
as I do trying
to prove the existence of God scientifically. I take these matters on faith. So
I trust God and use the Bible. Since people have generally given up trying to
prove God's existence, I think we may have reasonable hope that they will one
day give up trying to prove the validity, infallibility, authority, spiritual
power or whatever of the Bible. But until we reach that point, men like van de
Fliert serve us well.
Henry Booms
Pastor, Tn-Cities Christian Reformed Church Pasca, Washington 99301
I greatly enjoyed the refutation of Morris and Whitcomb's debacle by
van de Fliert.
James It. Moore
908 Country Lane Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
For several years now we non-geologists have had to defend truth with
our inadequate
geological knowledge while the geologists in the A.S.A. either chose to remain
silent or else were in such a small minority that their voices were
not heard.
Dr. van de Fliert's article exposing the fatal flaws of Whitcomb's and Mortis'
book on flood geology was a most welcome and long overdue breath of
fresh air.
I would like to add these facts to his scholarly
article:
1. Professor Kane, Chairman of Geology Dept., Ball State University, indicated
to me that none of the geologists approving Whitcomb and Morris's
hook have been
involved in geological research in at least 2 and probably more likely 3 or 4
decades. This, he said, he can vouch for by personal knowledge of the
geologists
themselves as well as of the research literature. He said that they
are essentially
"arm-chair geologists."
2. On Whitcomb's third visit to Ball State University (Fall, 1967),
several geologists,
anthropologists, biologists, and archaeologists pointed out to him some of the
more obvious errors in the book. Not once in the lii hour meeting did he admit
to the need for any correction in spite of overwhelming evidence from
those research
scientists to the contrary. However, it is encouraging to note that so far as
many students were concerned, the meeting had beneficial results as
they testified
that no one had taken the trouble before to point out the dangerous
grounds upon
which flood geology rests.
3. The book's testimonies by non-geologists such as plant breeders,
civil engineers,
chemists, and the like are irrelevant to the primarily geological problem, are
misleading to laymen, and appear somewhat (probably unintentionally) dishonest
to be included.
It is pitiful to see so many of our fellow conservatives resort to intellectual
dishonesty, browbeating, pseudo-pietism, and even hatred-all in the
name of Christ
and fundamentalism. It would seem that they feel that the end
justifies the means.
It was good to see the testimonies of geologists Cuffy, Tanner, and
Boardman regarding
the article. May God give courage to other geologists in the A.S.A. to stand up
and he counted for the faith!
Thomas Key Department of Biology Oglethorpe College Atlanta, Georgia
I appreciate very much the attention devoted to our book1 by Professor van de
Fliert2 since most professional geologists have ignored it. However, I regret
that he allowed himself to resort to emotional language in his
discussion ("incredible",
"flagrant nonsense", "extremely dangerous", "pretended
scientific value", etc.). One evidence that evolutionary uniformitarianism
is a religion rather than a science is the fact that its advocates
almost invariably
react emotionally whenever a fellow scientist questions it.
We agree completely with most of Professor van de Fliert's paper and
are puzzled
as to why so much that is in agreement with THE GENESIS FLOOD is included in a
polemic against it. In many instances it seems to me that he is
battling a straw
man of his own preconception-like those evolutionists who forever are attacking
the supposed creationist doctrine of fixity of species.
Thus we have always stressed the uniformity of natural law as a basic principle
in science. Similarly we recognize abundant evidence of extensive
earth movements
in the past, including overthrusting, folding and other remarkable
tectonic features
which we do not see occurring at present. As a hydrologist and
hyraulics engineer, I certainly believe that the same basic
principles of hydraulics
operating at present were in effect when the ancient lands and rivers
were eroded
and the ancient sediments were deposited. Furthermore we recognize the value of
the standard geologic column as a taxonomic device and the fact that
strata usually
occur in the accepted order and that paleontologic criteria of identification
are generally valid.
But the point of the discussion in THE GENESIS FLOOD (and not
discussed by Professor
van de Fliert) is that there are a great number of exceptions to the
usual order
in which the supposed physical criteria of overthrusting, reworking, etc., are
not present, and that there are a great many geologic features which
(on consistent
uniformitarian principles) could not possibly be correlated with
geologic phenomena
actually observed by modern geologists, either quantitatively or qualitatively
(e.g., regional volcanic terrains, continental glaciation, mountain-building,
peneplain formation, fossil graveyards, incised meanders, regional alluviation,
submarine canyon formation, and many others.) It seems to many of us that such
things as these absolutely demand catastrophism of some sort, though within the
framework of uniform natural law.
In the decade since THE GENESIS FLOOD was written (though I do not
mean to suggest
any connection) a significant reaction of orthodox geologists has
emerged against
the older uniformitarianism, with an increasingly frank recognition that local
or regional catastrophism is fundamental in geologic interpretation.
I have discussed
this trend to some extent in two other papers.3,4 Of course there is still as
much antipathy as ever to the idea of a worldwide cataclysm such as
the Biblical
Flood.
In the book we attempted, in an exploratory way, to see how the actual observed
data of geology and other sciences could be harmonized with the Biblical record
of the Flood. We repeatedly stressed in the book that our proposed
geologic interpretations
are tentative and subject to revision with further study and
evaluation. However,
the one point we insisted on was that the basic Christian presupposition of the
inerrancy and perspicuity of the Genesis record must he maintained. If this is
not done, then the remaining system may possibly be theistic, but it
can be neither
Biblical nor truly Christian.
Now it is this fundamental requirement which not only van de Fliert
but all other
critics of THE GENESIS FLOOD have studiously ignored. Critics invariably dwell
on certain supposed flaws in our geological perspective (e.g., our
alleged failure
to recognize the real nature of the geologists' concept of uniformitarianism,
the supposed impropriety of documenting our ease with quotations from men who
don't agree with it, our alleged ignorance of the fact that there
really are some
examples of overthrusting, re-working of sediments and faunal mixing and other
phenomena whose universal applicability we questioned, etc.), but they always
pass by the much more important and fundamental fact that the written Word of
God uneqicoealltj teaches that there was a world-destroying cataclysm
in the days
of Noah!
This reaction of course is to be expected from non-Christian geologists, to whom
the Biblical record is utterly irrelevant anyhow. But it is disheartening and
puzzling when evangelical scientists, who insist that thet still believe in the divine authority of the Bible, also completely ignore
this powerful Biblical evidence for the worldwide cataclysm, as
presented in THE
GENESIS FLOOD and many other places. That this is a fair statement of
the situation
has been thoroughly confirmed in a recent study5, by a man trained in
both science
and theology, who has analyzed all the reviews and criticisms of THE
GENESIS FLOOD
since its initial publication.
Professor van de Fliert admits, in fact, that "our scientific
world picture
has become different from that of the authors of the Bible."5 To
him, therefore,
the fact that the writer of Genesis (as well as job, David, Isaiah,
Paul, Peter,
and even Christ Himself) believed in a global Flood is of no
importance. He feels
this issue can he settled simply by saying that "the Bible is
not a scientific
book." He even thinks (and one is almost startled to encounter this kind
of circumlocution in a serious scientist and Christian) that to apply
the Biblical
doctrine of inerrancy to matters of historic fact is "a colossal
overestimation
of science."
Atheistic scientists and philosophers, on the other hand, reason much
more directly.
To them, if the Bible is unreliable when it deals with matters of
human observation
and experience (i.e., science and history)as it does with great
emphasis and frequency-then
it is surely not worth trusting when it attempts to treat intangibles such as
sin and salvation, heaven and hell-and God!
Available space for this communication does not allow for a rebuttal
to Professor
van de Fliert's criticism of our discussion of hydrodynamic sorting
as a partial
explanation for the lithologic and paleontologic divisions in the strata of a
sedimentary exposure, or of the highly uncertain growth rates and
subsequent histories
of ancient coral reefs, or of other geological problems. I can only say that he
has not at all settled these questions.
But this is not the important thing. I again acknowledge that there are many,
many problems in geology for which we do not yet have adequate answers in terms
of the Biblical framework, even though we can at least see in a general way how
many of the data can be reinterpreted to correlate with it. There are even more
serious problems, on the other hand, for the dogmatic evolutionist
and uniformitarian.
The real crux of the matter, however, is "What saith Scripture?" In
THE GENESIS FLOOD, as well as in our other writings, Dr. Whitcomb and
I have maintained,
with a considerable number of straightforward Biblical arguments,
that the Bible
teaches a recent special Creation of all things and a worldwide Flood, and that
there is no permissible interpretation of the Bible which can
accommodate evolution
and the geological ages. No one has answered these arguments to date.
How, for one example, can we harmonize the concept of a billion years of random
variation, struggle for existence, natural selection, evolutionary
dead-ends and
extinctions without number, disease, confusion, disorder, decay, slaughter and
death; with the fact of a God of perfect wisdom, order, power and
gracewho could
easily have created all things complete and perfect from the beginning (as He
has revealed in His Word), but who according to the consistent evolutionist and
uniformitarian, chose the tortuous route of evolution instead? This is a serious theological problem, one that
cannot really
be settled by a quip or a platitude.
It seems to me that each evangelical scientist and theologian owes it
to the Christian
community to do one of two things: (1) develop a sound Biblical exegesis of the
fundamental chapters of the Bible (Genesis 1-11), consistent with the rest of
Scripture, which will clearly warrant his acceptance of the geological ages and
the general evolutionary world-view; or else (2) develop a re-interpretation of
the observed facts of geology and other sciences to correlate with the facts of
Biblical revelation concerning primeval earth history, centered in
special Creation,
the Fall, and the Flood.
There can be only confusion and danger in continuing to embellish the
superstructure
when the foundation has been destroyed.
1John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris: THE
GENESIS FLOOD (Nutley, N. J., Presbyterian and Re
formed Pobi. Co.) 1961, 518 pp. 14th printing (paper
back), 1969.
2J. R. van de Fliert: "Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology,"
Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation, Vol. 21, September 1969.
3"Science Versus Scientism in Historical Geology," Quarterly of the Creation Research
Society, Vol. 2, October 1965.
4"Sedimentation and
the Fossil Record: A Study in Hydraulic Engineering," Quarterly of the Creation Research
Society. Vol. 2, December 1967.
5Charles C. Clough: A Calm Appraisal of THE GENESIS FLOOD. Th. M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,
May 1968, 196 pp. This study is summarized in the
Creation Research Quarterly for September 1969.
6van der Fliert, op.
cit., p. 80.
Henry M. Morris Professor of Hydraulic Engineering, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060
I have been a pastor for more than forty years. During that time
nothing has grieved
my heart more than to see a young man start out with great promise
and later end
up a shipwreck.
I have enjoyed the privilege of being an Associate Member of A.S.A. during most
of its history. At the beginning it promised to do what I and many others had
prayed for a long time, namely, to bridge the widening gap between science and
the Bible. For some years you did well, But the past few years there has been
a gradual drifting. To me you reached the ridiculous in the recent
article, "The
Three Storied Universe."
Now you come forward with the article, "Fundamentalism and Fundamentals of
Geology," by van de Fliert. All of his arguments are what you find in the
average book on the subject. Mostly he vented his spleen on Morris and Whitcomb
along with all the rest of us who still believe in the Bible as
offering reliable
historical facts as well as promises.
It is this kind of dividing reason (or futile effort) from faith that
is causing
most of the tragedy of our day. Of course, van de Fliert shows an abiding faith
in his assumptions, his limited experiments, and conclusions. This is placing
a Mighty faith in human reason and judgment. No wonder he shunts his faith in
God and his word out into some mystical realm where reason can ask no questions
nor expect any answer.
In my judgment this is a perfect example of the Escape from Reason (Journal
ASA, 21, 54 (1969) )
that Francis Schaeffer recently wrote so well about. This is a true picture of
modem man-and a professed Evangelical Christian not only lends aid but defends
it.
J. Vernon Wheeless
Pastor, Rice Temple Baptist Church Houston, Texas 77025
J. R. van de Fliert faults Morris and Whitcomb (The Genesis Flood) for dogmatism. It is true that they might have presented their case in a less judgmental way. However, van de Fliert then proceeds to be just as dogmatic for the historical geology approach, allowing no possibility that Morris and Whitcomb might be correct. This is strange, when in the same article he is able to speak of the "poor state of our scientific knowledge today . . which will change tomorrow!" (p. 69) One then reads with wonder such statements as:
...this idea ... was soon to be shown false by evidence accumulated as the science of geology began to grow" (p. 70).
"There is no doubt about the answer in the present state of our knowledge... (p. 73).
"This basis makes it possible indeed to say that the broad lines of present-day historical geology are correct, and are to be accepted as a well established fact" (p. 80).
Van de Fliert may be correct, but the very fact that there are
scientists (including
geologists) today who
hold such a view, should call for a little more caution. Morris is
faulted because
he is not a geologist; it is true, this is not his main field. However, he is
trained in geology, and he is so listed in the American Scientific Affiliation
Directory.
Criticism, yes. Solid, first-hand research, yes. But dogmatism and
stone-throwing,
from either side, no. That will get none of us anywhere. Nor does it seem to me
to he in the best Christian spirit.
Vernon A. Raaflanb Box 188 Nipawin, Saskatchewan