I would not presume to answer for George, but I work in the geological
sciences. I am a geophysicist. I agree with George that geology brings
probably the greatest challenge to one wanting to reconcile science with
scripture. The biggest problem is that almost of the living animals prior to
the Eocene (about 55 million) years ago are different from any animal alive
today. I am working on a mammalian database with the geologic range of the
living and fossil mammalian species. To date, I have been unable to find a
single species alive today which was found fossilized prior to the Oligocene
(about 35 million years ago.) I have only found one or two of these cases.
Most species are not found in rocks older than the Pleistocene (2 million
years ago).
To understand how little of the geologic column has living animals, one must
realize that there are about 550 million years worth of Phanerozoic strata.
Thus the strata back to the Eocene represents only about 1/10 of the column.
Since most living animals are not found prior to the Pleistocene that
represents only 3 ten thousandths of the geological column. When I finish
the data base sometime this summer, I will share the results here.
The problem this creates for Christians is that we must explain why the
animals found in the rocks are different from the animals alive today. Even
the highly touted cases of "living fossils" are decidedly different from
modern animals.
So for the young-earth creationists who believe that the animals found in the
fossil record are the remains of pre-flood animals, this means that the
animals who got off the ark a few thousand years ago, are not the animals
who got on the ark.
For the Progressive creationist, this data turns them also into Progressive
extinctionists.
As far as I am concerned this data leaves only the evolution option. But
that then raises the issue of having Genesis be nothing more than myth. And
that is something I don't want. I think the best approach is to figure out
how to have a historical Bible without denying modern observational science.
I think I have a candiate scenario (see Bill Hamiltons review Perspectives
March 1996, p. 54). I posted those views on Talk.Origins a couple of weeks
ago. Normally those on T.O. engage in a feeding frenzy for anyone arguing
for a historical Genesis. I was ignored. Thus, I claim the title as the
only living person who has argued for a historical Genesis 1-11 on T.O. and
who has gotten away with it! :-) Yes I know it went out, because I got a
few encouraging comments privately. No criticisms.
glenn