RE: Earth Rotation and the Flood

Steven H. Schimmrich (sschimmr@calvin.edu)
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 17:44:00 -0400

At 11:37 AM 10/13/98 -0700, Art Chadwick wrote:
>
> I don't want to engage in verbal sparring or be insulting, so I will make
> my comment generally. I think this discussion is about bias. Somehow I
> think you have the idea that bias is wrong or unhealthy. But bias as I am
> using the word, is precisely what enables all of us to do science.
> Biochemists are no different than other scientists on this score. I don't
> see many biochemists using multiple working hypotheses. They are too
> anxious to get their stuff into print before someone else does! I am very
> concerned when I hear someone saying they are free of bias, and that others
> who disagree with them are biased.

No one is claiming to be totally free of bias. There is, however, a difference
between most working scientists who would claim to try their hardest to not let
the bias interfere with their work and many young-earth creationists, flood
geologists, etc. who revel in their bias (many YEC organizations require a signed
"Statement of Believe" in such things as a young Earth and global flood before even
joining) and excuse it by saying "Hey, we're all biased!"

I am NOT inexorably tied to the standard geologic model Art. I would be happy
and rejoice if I could be convinced that there's evidence for a geologically
recent global flood. I would love to flaunt that evidence in the face of my
secular colleagues and say "See, the Bible is right about this!" But I can't.
I can't because I don't see convincing evidence for it and I see reams and reams
of evidence in support of an ancient Earth and a long stratigraphic record.

I would also claim that not all biases are equal. Yes, when I look at a rock
outcrop I am biased into looking at it in a standard geologic framework and not,
for example, as the result of a recent global flood. Why? Because in years of
looking at rocks, and it examining the results of countless other geologists who've
spent years looking at rocks, that's what makes sense of my observations. I can't
fit my observations into a global flood model. In order to share your bias Art
I would have to ignore practically everything I see in rocks and concentrate on a
few apparently anomalous observations that I can't easily explain with the standard
geologic model. I'm not willing to throw away MOUNTAINS of evidence for one fern
leaf fossil. Science doesn't work that way.

I just now returned from a Sedimentary Geology field trip to Grand Ledge, Michigan.
I took the students to look at two outcrops along the Grand River. One was an old
partially-flooded quarry and the other were ledges along the river. One can look at
these rocks, in the middle of Michigan, and see a few interesting things:

1. These rocks are old. How do I know? Well they're full of Pennsylvanian-age
plant fossils. Forget how long ago the Pennsylvanian was and just look at the
fossils. These represent plants that no longer exist anywhere in the world today.
There rocks also have NO representative fossils of modern plants of any sort.
They're old.

2. There are several types of rocks here representing different environments of
deposition and these environments changed through time. There are marine
shales with brachipod fossils. There are siltstones and shales with lenses of
sands in them looking for all the world like an estuarine tidal flat. There
are layers of coals representing subtropical swamps filled with vegatation (and
over 90 species of plant fossils have been collected here). There are quartz
arenite sandstones with cross-bedding looking like beach sands.

3. Regional mapping reveals that these different rocks all fit together nicely
as representing a barrier island with sand dunes, behind which are tidal
flats and a lagoon, behind which are swamps with the area changing with time
as one would expect in a dynamic shoreline system (Milstein, R.L. 1987. The
ledges of the Grand River, Michigan. Geological Society of America Centennial
Field Guide - North-Central Section. Pp. 311-314).

It all makes sense. It all fits together. The evidence all supports this
interpretation. How on earth can anyone look at something like this and seriously
suggest these rocks formed in a few days in turbulent flood waters? That makes
absolutely no sense. Those rock types, sedimentary structures, and fossil associations
are most emphatically NOT what one would expect from a global flood. I challenge
anyone who thinks differently to provide me with a coherent model of how a flood
could explain such outcrops (and thousands more cyclothems like it across the midwestern
United States).

So, yes, we all have biases but some biases are supported by mountains of evidence
while others are supported by someone's wishful reading of Genesis and little else.

- Steve.

--   Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology   Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies   Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546   sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home)   616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax)    http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/