Sci & Educ (2009) 18:13411358 DOI 10.

1007/s11191-008-9162-6

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

Timothy H. Heaton

Published online: 12 July 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Young-earth creationism has undergone a shift in emphasis toward building of historical models that incorporate Biblical and scientiWc evidence and the acceptance of scientiWc conclusions that were formerly rejected. The RATE Group admitted that massive amounts of radioactive decay occurred during earth history but proposed a period of accelerated decay during Noahs Flood to Wt the resulting history into a young-earth timeframe. Finding a mechanism for the acceleration and dealing with the excessive heat and radiation it would generate posed major problems for the project. Catastrophic plate tectonics was proposed to explain continental movements in a short timeframe and serve as a trigger for Noahs Flood, but other creationists rejected the idea citing hopeless chronological problems. Creationists have also sought to explain the order of the fossil record and the Ice Age in a young-earth timeframe. An examination of these eVorts demonstrates the anti-scientiWc nature of using the Bible as a non-negotiable framework for earth history.

1 Introduction One hundred and Wfty years after the development of the geologic time scale and the publication of Darwins Origin of Species, belief in a young earth is surprisingly popular, driven by social forces that have little to do with scientiWc enquiry. Nevertheless the prevailing scientiWc epistemology has driven creationists to appeal to scientiWc evidence in support of their views. This approach has often been negative in natureattempting to show Xaws in prevailing scientiWc theories in hopes of bolstering creationism as an alternative. But in recent years considerable eVort has gone into building models that incorporate both Biblical and scientiWc evidence. Model building is nothing new to creationism, and the broad strategies have changed little over the years. George McCready Price, the grandfather of modern young-earth creationism, set the stage by attempting to Wt a broad array of earth history events into
T. H. Heaton (&) University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA e-mail: theaton@usd.edu URL: www.usd.edu/theaton

1C

1342

T. H. Heaton

catastrophic stories described in the Bibleparticularly the worldwide Flood in the days of Noah (Price 1916, 1935). Price attributed the entire fossil record to the Flood and grudgingly accepted a single ice age (not multiple ice ages) as an aftermath of the Flood. This same strategy was employed by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in The Genesis Flood: the Biblical Record and its ScientiWc Implications (1961), the book that started the popular wave of young-earth creationism that dominated the 1970s and 1980s. Henry Morris, creationisms most proliWc writer and founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), essentially abandoned model building after publication of The Genesis Flood and focused on criticizing uniformitarianism and evolution (Morris 1972, 1974). His simplistic two-model approach (Evolution Science versus Creation Science) actually sought to minimize the claims made by creationism and to oVer creationism as merely the alternative to modern science. This approach became the basis for extensive legal action to introduce creationism into the public schoolsan eVort that proved unsuccessful. This same strategy is now being employed by the intelligent design movement in a new wave of legal action. In both cases, advocates of creationism have attached a minimal set of details to their claims in order to avoid making their models testable. As the intelligent design movement has come to replace young-earth creationism in public debate, young-earth creationism has undergone a quiet revolutionone that is respectable in some ways but revealing in others. Freed from the need to bash evolutionists and Wght tricky legal battles (the intelligent design folks are taking care of that), youngearth creationists are busy trying to build a detailed model of earth history based on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. By the 1990s, a new generation of young-earth creationists earned advanced degrees in diverse scientiWc Welds and expressed interest in scientiWc rigor and a dislike for the public debates and fanfare that dominated young-earth creationism in earlier decades. At Wrst they tended to work on esoteric problems in isolation from one anothertheir work being recognized mostly for its propaganda value. But since 2000 there has been a shift toward collaborative research eVorts of considerable sophistication. The eVorts of this new generation of creationists are the subject of this paper. Describing creationist models in an objective manner can be diYcult because of the many assumptions involved, because creationists frequently disagree with one another on central issues, and because it takes considerable eVort for an outsider to investigate the inner workings of a group that employs a complicated mix of faith and reason. This study is the result of extensive reading of young-earth creationist literature and in-depth discussions with many of the primary researchers. Most of these creationists have considerable conWdence in their models, even if many details are tentative, and often claim misunderstanding or bias when their work is criticized. To avoid this problem direct quotes are used extensively in this paper to let the creationists tell their own story and avoid misrepresentation. This study is valuable because it addresses one of the most contentious issues in modern education: how to present science in an objective manner that neither supports nor oVends any religious or anti-religious belief. Young-earth creationists are the most diYcult group to pacify in this respect and are frequently accused of espousing a blatantly unscientiWc alternative to earth history. Understanding the problems they face in their attempts to achieve scientiWc vigor are instructive on how successful any blend of science and faith can be.

2 Nature of the Problem The biggest problem for young-earth creationists is time. They do not have much of it to work with (only about 6,000 years according to their Biblical chronology), and there is an

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1343

immense amount of apparent earth history to account for. Many creationists frankly admit this problem: A face-value reading of the Bible indicates that the creation is thousands of years old. A face-value examination of the creation suggests it is millions or billions of years old. The reconciliation of these two observations is one of the most signiWcant challenges to creation research. (Wise 2002, p. 58) The geological column with its purported transformation from structurally simple to complex fossils and bolstered by radiometric dating appears to present a formidable challenge to creationists Geological processes and events such as the formation of coal, oil, evaporites, large-scale limestone formations, paleosols, extant ice sheets, and ice ages are considered conclusive evidence against the creationist short time scale. (Oard 1997, p. 2) There is simply too much geological work to be done in too short a time. (Humphreys 2000, p. 370; 2005, p. 68) Following the lead of George McCready Price, modern young-earth creationists attempt to use the Flood of Noah to explain this apparent history: The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically diVerent picture of our planets history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its air-breathing life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this Biblical event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and man all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in a world-destroying cataclysm. (Vardiman 2005a, pp. 1011) Or as Oard (Undated) simply stated, The Flood probably takes care of 80% of our time problems. 3 The RATE Project A team of creationist researchers called the RATE Group (for Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) embarked on a multi-year study to explain radiometric dating in a young-earth framework, and their detailed Wndings were published in 2005. Rather than dismiss radioactive dating as nonsense as Morris (1972, pp. 8995; 1974, pp. 137149) had done, they sought to approach the topic objectively and see how the results could be made harmonious with a young earth (Vardiman et al. 2005, pp. 736738). A few quotes from their results will explain their objectives and methodology: A key issue identiWed early in the RATE project needed immediate attention: How much radioisotopic decay had occurred in the history of the earth? If it was a large amount, how could it be explained? Phase one showed that a large amount of radioactive decay had indeed occurred. At least four pieces of evidence made this conclusion inescapable. First, a large quantity of Pb [lead], the end product in the U[ranium] decay chain, was found in close proximity to the radioactive centers still containing residual U. Second, Wssion tracks, caused by the passage of high-energy fragments emanating from the Wssion of U atoms gave evidence of a large amount of

1C

1344

T. H. Heaton

nuclear decay. Third, radiohalos were formed around primary and secondary radioactive centers where large concentrations of high-energy -particles damaged the surrounding crystal structures leaving spherical shells of discoloration. And, fourth, relatively large concentrations of He[lium] were still present in the rocks. This He resulted from emitted -particles having captured two electrons each to become He atoms and coming to rest. (Vardiman 2005a, p. 6, italics in original) Once the RATE group was certain that a large amount of nuclear decay had actually occurred, the obvious explanation for so much daughter product was accelerated radioactive decay. This hypothesis was reluctantly embraced because conventional wisdom dictates that even under extreme physical conditions like high temperatures and pressures the decay rates typically do not change today by more than a few percent. However, as the evidence began to accumulate during the RATE project it became clear that accelerated nuclear decay was the most promising explanation for the large amount of daughter products. Initially, the concept of accelerated decay was only an hypothesis, but evidence from several diVerent sources resulted in accelerated decay becoming the primary explanation for the Wndings of RATE. (Vardiman 2005a, p. 7, italics in original) Only the highlights of the 818-page RATE Wnal report can be summarized here. The team focused on several unexplained scientiWc discoveries and how they might suggest a young earth. The Wrst of these discoveries is that minerals in the earths crust contain more helium gas than would be expected if this helium had millions of years to diVuse away following its production by radioactive decay: One line of evidence strongly supporting accelerated decay is associated with two clocks involving decay of U in zircon crystals in granite. The age of granite calculated from the rate at which He diVuses from imbedded zircons gives an age which is orders of magnitude less than the millions to billions of years calculated from U decaying to Pb. The rate of diVusion appears not to have been aVected by whatever accelerated the nuclear decay. Consequently, the age of the earth from the diVusion clock is on the order of thousands of years, not millions or billions, in agreement with the young age of the earth derived from the genealogies in the Bible. Billions of years thought necessary for evolution to occur never happened. Without these eons of time available, evolution becomes unthinkable. The consistent time frame between the calculations of He diVusion in granite and the Biblical chronology support the Bibles statements of earth history and Creation. (Vardiman 2005a, p. 13, italics in original) Experiments sponsored by RATE show that helium leakage deXates long half-life radioisotopic ages. In 1982 Robert Gentry found amazingly high retentions of nuclear-decay-generated helium (He) in microscopic zircons (ZrSiO4 crystals) recovered from a borehole in hot Precambrain granitic rock at Fenton Hill, New Mexico. In 2001 RATE contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of He diVusion out of the zircons. The measured rates resoundingly conWrm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a He diVusion age of 6000 2000 (1 ) years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic billions of years down to the 6000-year timescale of the Bible. In section 13 I discuss, in light of our diVusion data, one of the problems

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1345

for the accelerated decay hypothesis, disposal of excess radiogenic heat. (Humphreys 2005, p. 25) What the RATE researchers have done is use helium diVusion from crystals as a crude geologic clock and given it preference over the well-established methods of radiometric dating. They showed little interest in exploring alternative explanations for the helium retention. To their credit, they frankly admitted that their proposed clock had a serious Xaw. Russell Humphreys (2000, p. 369) explained: The most obvious problem with the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay is: what to do with all the heat? A simple calculation shows that crustal rocks with their present amount of radioactivity would melt many times over if decay rates were accelerated. This is a serious problem because helium diVusion is temperature dependent. Even modest heating from accelerated decay would allow the helium decay products to rapidly escape, thus negating their very explanation for helium retention! So where did all this heat go? Humphreys (2005, pp. 6970) proposed water Xowing through cleavage planes of biotite, thermodynamic conservation of energy in an expanding gas, and spacetime [as a] deformable surface in a hyperspace as possible mechanisms to account for the heat loss in mineral crystals. These explanations range from the ordinary (but obviously inadequate) to the realm of pure science Wction. Humphreys gave the expansion hypothesis the most attention, probably because it falls between the two extremes: However, I would like to emphasize here that all creationist Creation or Flood models I know of have serious problems with heat disposalso the solution I outline here should be useful in any creationist geological model. The solution takes advantage of a little-known but well-established consequence of the expansion of the cosmos: it makes energy disappear! That includes heat energy. A rapid expansionmakes heat disappear fast enough to alleviate our problem, perhaps solving it. (Humphreys 2000, pp. 369370, italics in original) While cooling by expansion is normally understood to apply only to gases, Humphreys (2005, p. 72) oVered: As far as I can tell, the loss mechanism would apply not only to free particles, but also to particles under the inXuence of electromagnetic forces (such as forces between atoms) This application of expansion to solids is extremely dubious because solids require the close proximity of bonded atoms. Humphreys oVered no calculation of the heat required to break atomic bonds or to release trapped gas molecules such as helium. Instead he proposed the speculation that the real problem is how to keep non-radioactive materials from getting too cold at the same time, but he aYrmed: I am conWdent that a good explanation exists (whether or not we can Wnd it). That is because (a) the evidence convinces me that accelerated decay did indeed occur, and (b) as one of Noahs descendants, I know that his family did not freeze to death aboard the Ark! In spite of all these leaps of faith Humphreys concluded our most important result is this: He diVusion casts doubt on uniformitarian long-age interpretations of nuclear data and strongly supports the young world of Scripture (Humphreys 2005, pp. 7375, italics in original). The concept of accelerated nuclear decay stretches credulity at every turn. While much of the experiment and analysis conducted by the RATE group is legitimate science, their conclusions are founded purely on religious biases and speculative miracles. The same transition from science to religion can be seen in their analysis of another poorly-understood phenomenon:

1C

1346

T. H. Heaton

A remarkable discovery made over the past twenty-Wve years is that organic samples from every level in the Phanerozoic portion of the geologic record, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, display signiWcant and reproducible amounts of 14C [carbon-14]. Because the lifetime of 14C is so brief, these AMS measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock record. Another noteworthy observation is that the 14C/C ratio of these samples appears to be uncorrelated with their position in the geological record. A straightforward but startling inference from these AMS data is that all but the very youngest fossil material in the geologic record was buried contemporaneously only thousands of years ago in what must have been a major global cataclysm. The simultaneous destruction of so much life implies, however, that dramatically more total carbon (now in the form of coal, oil, and oil shale) had to be present in the earths biosphere prior to this cataclysmic event. Using a lower, more realistic estimate for the biospheric 14C/C ratio prior to the cataclysm reduces the actual 14C age by roughly a factor of ten from about 50,000 years to a value of about 5000 years. This latter estimate, of course, is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the life on the planet, both plants and animals, in a single brief cataclysm some four to Wve millennia ago. Finally, our 14C RATE project has measured 14 C/C ratios above the AMS threshold in diamonds from a variety of locations [and] these measurements appear to limit the age of the physical earth itself to the range of thousands (as opposed to billions) of years. (Baumgardner 2005, pp. 587588) Ironically, this conclusion would be stronger in the absence of accelerated decay since acceleration leads to the same expectation as an old earth, namely the decay of all shortlived radioisotopes like 14C. The lack of correlation between 14C dates and the geologic column also contradicts values from other radioisotope dates, which the RATE team accepted (in their compressed timescale) as mostly reliable. Furthermore, the presence of 14C traces in diamonds calls into question the biological origin of these low levels of 14C, which is a key assumption of the 5,000 year age estimate mentioned above. John Baumgardner found a convenient solution to all of these problems, however. He explored the possibility that 14C formed when 13C (a more common, stable isotope) captured a stray neutron, but he calculated that this phenomenon would produce 14C at only 1/13,000th the measured level (in diamonds) under prevailing conditions in the earths crust. On the other hand, a recent episode of accelerated nuclear decay corresponding to, say, 500 million years worth of U decay, would generate0.5 pMC, which is close to what we measured in our diamond samples (Baumgardner 2005, p. 616). This explanation, by itself, nulliWes useful creationist conclusions. So Baumgardner (2005, p. 621) proposed that only about 2,000 years worth of accelerated 14C decay occurred during the Flood (as opposed to 500,000,000 years of U decay) which is well within the uncertainties in the 14C/C ratio we considered in connection with the pre-Flood world, so it has little impact on the larger issues discussed in this chapter (i.e. simultaneous death of most life about 5,000 years ago). So while Baumgardner began with a genuine scientiWc puzzle that has perplexed researchers, in the end he assigned arbitrary values to a speculative phenomenon (accelerated decay) to support a preconceived religious conclusion. Other chapters of the RATE report cover radiohalos, Wssion tracks, isochrons, and theoretical considerations for how God might have tweaked the nuclear forces to cause accelerated decay. There is also consideration for how Noah and his family on the Ark might have

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1347

survived the massive heat and radiation associated with accelerated nuclear decay (Vardiman et al. 2005, pp. 764765). A recurring problem faced by creationists is that once miracles are allowed, there are no rules to govern the number or nature of the miracles that can be imagined, and wide disagreement generally results. Overall the RATE project can be characterized as an attempt to minimize the number of miracles employed, or to cover the most ground using just a few of them. Yet in their individual reports, the RATE scientists seemed to be pushing in diVerent directions and maintaining a margin of consensus through considerable compromise (Vardiman 2005a, p. 3; Vardiman et al. 2005, p. 736). The following commentary from ICR President John Morris is revealing: One of the keys for the RATE groupin fact probably the single most important key was not one of the six scientists, but Dr. Larry Vardiman, who was the coordinator, the moderator. He was the guy at the head of the table, and he kept it all focused and kept it going down the trackand just an amazing ability to keep these wild stallions from bolting and going oV in their own direction, and it was just an amazing thing to see it happen The RATE project would not have been successful without his oil on the water. And whatever projectif theres another initiative like this of a bunch of guys getting together, unless they have a moderator like Larry Vardiman, it wont work. (Morris 2003) While the RATE scientists seemed genuinely dedicated to research and model building and showed little interest in propaganda, the RATE project did have a signiWcant propaganda component. A summary book and a DVD, both titled Thousands Not Billions were clearly meant for the general public and strongly implied that the RATE team had made the case for a young earth: The goal of this book is to open the window on the serious possibility that an ancient earth is a false and misleading assumption. In sharp contrast, the following pages present the scientiWc case for a recently created world. The young-earth view is conWdently promoted in this book because the Bible clearly points in that direction. All scientiWc data, as well, can be interpreted to support a recent creation. (DeYoung 2005, pp. 1415)

4 Catastrophic Plate Tectonics While the sole purpose of the RATE project was to bring a mass of scientiWc data into harmony with scripture, another proposal (by some of the same authors) seeks to oVer a convenient mechanism for the Biblical Flood as well: The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic Xoor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins. Deformation of the mantle by these slabs raised the temperature and lowered the viscosity of the mantle in the vicinity of the slabs. A resulting thermal runaway of the slabs through the mantle led to meters-per-second mantle convection. Cool oceanic crust which descended to the core/mantle boundary induced rapid reversals of the earths magnetic Weld. Large plumes originating near the core/mantle boundary expressed themselves as Wssure eruptions and Xood basalts. Flow induced in the mantle also produced rapid extension along linear belts throughout the sea Xoor and rapid horizontal displacement of continents. Upwelling magma jettisoned steam into the atmosphere causing intense

1C

1348

T. H. Heaton

global rain. Rapid emplacement of isostatically lighter mantle material raised the level of the ocean Xoor, displacing ocean water onto the continents. When virtually all the pre-Flood oceanic Xoor had been replaced with new, less dense, less-subductable ocean crust, catastrophic motion stopped. Subsequent cooling increased the density of the new ocean Xoor, producing deeper ocean basins and a reservoir for post-Flood oceans. After the Flood, the earth experienced a substantial period of isostatic readjustment, where local to regional catastrophes with intense earthquake and volcanic activity were common. In the following centuries, as the earth cooled, Xoral and faunal changes tracked the changing climate zonation. The warmer oceans caused continental transport of moisture that led to the advance of continental glaciers and ultimately to the formation of polar ice caps. (Austin et al. 1994, pp. 609610) Given the power of plate tectonics to account for the geomorphic features of the oceans and continents, it is no surprise that creationists would seek a high-speed version of this model that would Wt within the Biblical timeframe. They distinguish their model with the name catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) and cite evidence that this idea predates uniformitarian plate tectonics by over 100 years (Austin et al. 1994). Baumgardner (1987, 1990, 2003) has proposed a model of mantle convection that might allow for runaway subduction given certain initial conditions. Humphreys (1986, 1990) has linked this to a mechanism to account for the many magnetic reversals in earth history, but with them happening over weeks rather than millions of years. Other members of the group (Austin 1994; Wise 2002) have sought explanations for the sedimentological and fossil records using CPT as a driving mechanism. In addition to explaining scientiWc data, CPT also provides several natural mechanisms for initiating a world-wide Xood: catastrophic evaporation/precipitation and ocean overXow onto the continents. This is convenient because Wnding a source for the Xoodwater and a place for its retreat have been longstanding problems in Biblical creationism (Whitcomb and Morris 1961, pp. 77, 121). In addition to oVering a ready explanation for a variety of scientiWc and scriptural data, CPT is a clear attempt to minimize the number of miracles required to explain a complex religious-historical event, thus helping to place it within the realm of science. In fact many of the authors proposals for what might have initiated the CPT/Flood crisis (listed in Austin et al. 1994, pp. 611612) involve no miracles at all! But since the religious account requires at least one miracle (because God deliberately caused the Flood for speciWed reasons), there is ongoing discussion of the nature and timing of that miracle: The question we pose and try to address is: Did God during creation week fashion the earths lithosphere with built-in internal stresses, zones of weakness, and slow deformations pre-calculated to unleash global tectonic catastrophe on precisely the day Noah and his family would board the ark, or did God employ other special means to initiate the Flood cataclysm? The question relates to the timing of Gods special action. The point here is that Gods intervention has frequently been assumed to occur just at the moment of the Flood, for example, near collision of a large comet with the earth, asteroids hitting the earth, rapid earth expansion, or something of that sort. Although some type of catastrophic event could have initiated the runaway subduction at the required moment, we illustrate in this paper that Wnite deformation and creep eVects alone, established by God at creation, can account for the onset of the catastrophe. (Horstmeyer and Baumgardner 2003, p. 155) In spite of the many convenient aspects of CPT, several prominent young-earth creationists have consistently opposed it (Froede 2000; Oard 2000, 2002a, b, c; Reed et al. 2000).

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1349

Their objections are diverse and stress skepticism of the evidence for horizontal crustal movement, gradual or rapid. A few of their criticisms are speciWc to CPT: For example, stratigraphic evidence suggests a Mesozoic opening of the present Atlantic Ocean. However, Austin et al. (1994) suggest continental separation at the onset of the Flood event. Combining these two assertions leads to the conclusion that the entire Paleozoic record was deposited prior to the Flood. (Reed et al. 2000, p. 15) Austin et al. (1994) proposed Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks as Flood deposits even though tectonic separation of the continents (from the supercontinent Pangaea) is a Mesozoic/Cenozoic phenomenon. This timing problem was raised during the question and answer session following their oral presentation, and they had no good explanation. Baumgardner (2002a; 2003, p. 122; 2005, p. 617) abandoned one conclusion of the Austin et al. (1994) paper by agreeing with Oard (1990, pp. 3031; 2005, pp. 4142) that Cenozoic rocks are also Flood deposits, but Austin (1994) and Wise (2002, pp. 214218; personal communication) still consider Cenozoic rocks to be post-Flood for sedimentological reasons. As for the Paleozoic Era and earlier continental motion, Austin et al. (1994, p. 616) oVered the possibility of multiple phases of runaway subduction, even though this would complicate their model considerably: It is also important that we determine how many Wilson cycles [opening and closing of an ocean basin] are needed to explain the data of continental motion, and thus whether more than one phase of runaway subduction is necessary. More than one cycle may be addressed by partial separation and closure during one rapid tectonics event, and/or renewed tectonic motion after cooling of ocean Xoor allowed further rapid tectonics. Finally, it will also be important to determine more precisely the geologic position of the initiation and termination of the Flood around the world in order to identify the geologic data relevant to particular questions of interest. The other primary objection from young-earth creationists that oppose CPT involves heat Xow: An obvious problem which is raised by invoking rapid ocean Xoor formation and cooling while undergoing a Wilson cycle is the excessive heat generated by this event. Accounting for the heat production and loss associated with the formation of the oceanic Xoors remains a serious unresolved issue within CPT. (Froede 2000, p. 151) Drifting continents may be an unnecessary burden for the CreationistDiluvialist paradigm. In fact, it may be an impossible one, since continental displacement within a very short time span requires massive heat Xow from the new ocean crust as well as seismic activity on a scale that is diYcult to even model, much less demonstrate. (Reed et al. 2000, p. 16) A further problem is that all the ocean basins were resurfaced by hot lava during the Flood. This hot lava not only contributes to the heat problem of the Flood, but also as the lava cools the ocean Xoor would subside for hundreds of years. Hence, advocates of catastrophic plate tectonics must believe in copious post-Flood catastrophism, in which the continents rise to balance the sinking ocean basins. This post-Flood catastrophism is relegated to the Cenozoic within the geological column. One of the problems with this is that the Cenozoic is supposed to be a very catastrophic period, especially if telescoped within a few hundred years. According to mainstream geologists, mountains were built, eroded, and rebuilt during this period. Volcanism was extensive. Thick

1C

1350

T. H. Heaton

continental shelves were mostly formed from copious continental erosion during the Cenozoic. Earthquakes must have been monstrous. One can seriously question whether humans would have survived all this post-Flood catastrophism. There are many more problems with the suggestion of post-Flood catastrophism. (Oard 2002a) Austin et al. (1994, p. 614) admitted a heat problem as another unresolved aspect of their CPT model. The problem is that most seaXoor basalts are far too cold to have formed a few thousand years ago based on thermal conduction properties of rock, and there is no good answer as to where the heat went. This is a problem for many igneous rocks in a young-earth timeframe and is probably one reason why Humphreys (2000, pp. 369370) admitted that all creationist Creation or Flood models I know of have serious problems with heat disposal All that Austin et al. (1994, p. 610) oVered was a disclaimer in their introduction: Our model is still in its formative stages, and is thus incomplete. What is presented here is a basic framework upon which more theory can be built. We anticipate that a substantial amount of work is still needed to explain all the salient features of this planets rocks and fossils. While CPT remains a popular idea among young-earth creationists and seems at the surface to hold explanatory power as a young-earth model, its proponents have made no progress toward solving its most serious problems. Wise (2002, pp. 182195) enthusiastically endorsed CPT in his model of earth history and proposed many advantages it might have over uniformitarian plate tectonics, but he failed to address the timing or heat Xow problems. Baumgardner (2002b) also failed to address them in an exchange with Oard (2002a, b, c) over CPT, but this didnt stop him from oVering an enthusiastic endorsement: When one examines Michael Oards own alternative explanations for the tectonic features of the Earth, it should be plain he is not concerned with serious alternatives to the paradigm he is attacking. Instead he is engaging in a campaign to raise doubts in the minds of Christians regarding the prevailing framework. I believe we as creationists can do much better than that. I am persuaded we possess the ability to sort truth from error and discern what is uniformitarian fantasy from what is genuine reality. Just as evolutionary scientists for the most part discovered and elucidated the details of genetic language, which we now realize can only come into existence by willful action of a Superintelligence, secular scientists for the most part have assembled the beginning of a conceptual framework that, whether they realize it yet or not, now makes possible a serious defense of the Genesis Flood. In my view, as creationists we should be laboring with every resource we have at our disposal to bring to fruition a comprehensive Flood geology model/framework that accounts not only for large-scale tectonic phenomena but also for details of sediment deposition and erosion patterns and tectonics at a regional and even local scale. I believe such a framework, with vastly more explanatory power than anything uniformitarianism can muster, is now within our reach. It is time to move beyond throwing stones at the uniformitarians (and each other) and work together to oVer the world this positive alternative. It is time for constructive action. It would be interesting to see what a large-scale creationist project like RATE could do with CPT. A proposed ICR project called Flood Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST), with Steven Austin as principal investigator, may advance this topic (Morris 2003; Vardiman 2005b).

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1351

5 The Fossil Record The fossil record presents another serious time problem for young-earth creationists. The simplest way to explain the hundreds of distinct fossil zones is with a long evolutionary history comprising many time intervalseach with a suite of species distinct from those before and after. How have creationists dealt with this? Somewhat paradoxically, it has been common for creationists on the one hand to reject any claimed order in the fossil record and on the other hand to claim that the order in the fossil record can be explained by Noahs Flood. Sometimes both of these claims can be found within the same work. To explain any order which is admitted, one or more of four theories are usually invoked: diVerential mobility, hydrodynamic sorting, diVerential Xotation, diVerential intelligence, and ecological zonation. Unfortunately, some combination of these claims can be utilized to explain any order (or lack thereof) that could ever be imagined for the fossil record. As a result, ad hoc appeal to such theories does not provide adequate explanation of fossil record order. (Wise 2003, p. 371, references omitted) Creationists such as Austin (1994), Wise (2002, 2003), and Wood and Murray (2003) have oVered two very diVerent explanations for diVerent parts of the geologic record. They proposed that all Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks and fossils were deposited in a single year during the worldwide Flood of Noah. Following Clark (1946, 1968) and Whitcomb and Morris (1961) they attributed the fossil zones to the sequence in which species died in the Xoodwaters. But they have tried to give this explanation a fresh, honest look and to propose new ideas to explain the fossil order. Unfortunately, the young-age creation model currently has few predictions about what the fossil record order should be. We lack relative waterlogging and settling rates for various taxa to predict the order generated by hydrodynamic sorting. Current Flood models suggest that the pre-Flood terrestrial biota was overcome by waters transgressing over the land, picking oV one terrestrial community at a time. Thus, if the order of fossil burial was primarily determined by order of inundation, then the biogeography of the pre-Flood world would produce a Wrst-order prediction of fossil record order. However, our current ignorance of pre-Flood biogeography prevents such predictions from being made. (Wise 2003, p. 373) To explain all this I would like to propose the existence of an extensive Xoating forest biome in the pre-Flood world. Its association with otherwise marine fauna of the Paleozoic suggests it Xoated atop ocean water. The huge volume of Paleozoic plants (e.g. the Carboniferous coals) suggests that the biome was huge perhaps subcontinent to continent-sized. The highly disruptive waters of the Flood would be expected to destroy such an ecosystem from the outermost portions inward, explaining the sequence of Paleozoic plants we see in the fossil record as well as the exclusively marine nature of the Wrst enclosing sediments and then the fact that later fossils are often interbedded with marine fauna and sediments. Post-Flood catastrophism would also explain both why the ecosystem never developed after the Flood and why most of the Paleozoic plants are extinct and the remainder are found only in low diversity in relict localities. Living among the Xora of the Xoating forest was an associated fauna. This fauna would have ranged from Wsh which lived in the pools in the forest Xoor, to amphibians which inhabited the aquatic/terrestrial interface, to insects and small animals which lived in the terrestrial environment of the understory and canopy.

1C

1352

T. H. Heaton

The permanent destruction of the Xoating forest biome would explain why virtually all Paleozoic land animals are extinct. It would also provide a reasonable explanation for the stratigraphic position, the environment, and the morphology of the animals which appear to be fully functional morphological intermediates between Wsh and amphibians (e.g. Ichthyostega). (Wise 2003, p. 376) Normally a massive Xood would mix all the plant and animal remains into a random heap, sorting out only those that remained aXoat in the water. Since the fossil record is highly ordered (but not with respect to the Xoatability of carcasses), Wise proposed a series of unlikely events to account for the observed order. Recognizing that this model still has diYculty explaining the order of fossil zones, Wood and Murray (2003, p. 188; see also Wise 2002, pp. 172175) went further by oVering another creative proposal: Because the zones have little overlap between them, we infer that the organization of the pre-Flood organismal geography was much stricter than it is today. After the Flood, when all organisms were thrust together and then re-distributed, the geographical patterns that emerged display a great deal of gradation between ecological zones. In contrast, the pre-Flood zonation appears to have been much more well-deWned, with very limited regions of ecological gradation. This passage illustrates the strategy taken by these authorsa strategy they freely admit in their books. They begin by taking the Biblical account as accurate beyond question, then they brainstorm for ideas to make the scientiWc data Wt their faith-based model. Even if Xoating forests and strict geographic zonation once existed, it is hard to imagine how a catastrophic Xood would translate this into an orderly stratigraphic sequence like the fossil record. Notice how Wood and Murray (2003, p. 190) solved yet another problem inherent in their model: Strangely missing from the Flood-deposited strata were most of the mammals, birds, and angiosperms, and all evidence of human life. From their nearly complete absence, we can infer that these organisms probably occupied the same biological zone before the Flood. The few birds and mammals found in the Secondary strata suggest that the mammal/bird/human zone was probably adjacent to the dinosaur/ gymnosperm zone. Even more exciting in this regard is the presence or morphological intermediate organisms, such as the mammal-like reptiles found in South Africa and the Archaeopteryx from a single deposit in Germany. If the border region between the mammal and dinosaur zones was a sharp ecological transition, it is possible that the intermediates long interpreted as evidence for evolution are actually evidence for an ecological transition. When the Flood began, large portions of the crust that formed the ocean Xoor began to slide underneath the crust that formed the continents. Creationist geologists believe that this process, called subduction, was the primary driving force for the Flood. Because the subduction occurred so quickly (destroying thousands of kilometers of ocean crust in months), the subduction zone would have been a site of violent geological upheaval. If the mammal zone bordered on one of these subduction zones, it is possible that all remnants of the pre-Flood people (and mammals and birds) were annihilated in the subduction zone. Testing these sorts of ad hoc hypotheses is diYcult to impossible, especially when their sole purpose is to account for a lack of evidence. Wise (2002, pp. 190207), following the positivist theme of his book, proposed many advantages that Flood geology has over uniformitarian geology in explaining data, but he also admitted many disadvantages and

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1353

diYculties. In any case, there is little that would attract a reader to this model who did not share the authors religious convictions. These same authors proposed a very diVerent explanation for the fossil order of the Cenozoic Era. Much like the RATE group advocated accelerated nuclear decay during the Flood, these creationists proposed accelerated evolution in the Floods aftermath: In perhaps as few as three centuries, scores of new species arose within most mammal baramins [created kinds], and thousands of species arose within many of the insect and plant baramins. Many of these animals would be extinguished by the catastrophic and changing environments after the Flood, but many others would survive for a timelong enough, at least, to produce new generations of diVerent organisms. It might be that increasing frequency of modern species in Tertiary sediments (starting at zero percent in the lowermost Tertiary rocks) is explained by this intrabaraminic diversiWcation. During this period the world was also cooling. Bulkier animals, of course, are better able to survive in cooler environments. Thus the tendency for mammal species to increase in size through the Tertiary and into Quaternary (known as Copes Law) may be explained as a biological response to the post-Flood cooling trend. (Wise 2002, p. 218) The concept of rapid post-Flood evolution was originally proposed by Marsh (1941, 1944), who also coined the term baramin. This concept permitted considerable microevolution while discounting macroevolution. Enthusiasm for this concept has expanded in recent years, and the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has held a conference nearly every summer since 1999. The group has proposed that baramins represent roughly the Family level of taxonomy (Wood 2006b). Wood and Murray (2003) outlined an elaborate algorithm for recognizing baramins. Examples given include the horse family: In many mammal baramins, actual fossil series can be found, showing a transformation from small ancestors to their larger and more diverse descendents. Small animals would be a great choice for preservation on the ark because they needed less room than larger members of the same baramin and they thrived on the warm, post-Flood earth. The best-known example of the post-Flood diversiWcation is found in the fossil horses, but camels, elephants, rhinoceroses, cats, rodents, and just about every other mammal group show similar fossil trends. (Wood and Murray 2003, p. 48) As part of a baraminological study of fossil horses, Wood, Cavanaugh, and Wise applied ANOPA [Analysis of Patterns] to a published dataset of dental, cranial, and post-cranial characters. They discovered that the horse fossils form a true trajectory through the 3D ANOPA spacein roughly stratigraphic order. Fossils found exclusively in the lowest post-Flood rock layers form one end of the trajectory, while the fossil[s] from the higher levels (including the extant Equus) form the other end. More surprisingly still, we also Wnd that the trajectory closely mirrors the phylogeny of the fossil horses as proposed by McFadden. Because ANOPA frequently contradicts phylogenetic trees, we must seriously regard this equid trajectory as very good evidence that the fossil equids record an actual path of diversiWcation through character space. (Wood and Murray 2003, pp. 131132) This type of analysis is now being applied to diverse taxonomic groups, including humans. Wise (2005) studied the recently described Homo Xoresiensis skeleton [and] suggest[ed] it might represent a distinct post-Babel human population with an extreme morphology, while Wood (2006a) described the remarkable similarity between the human

1C

1354

T. H. Heaton

and chimpanzee genome but reminded his readers that the Bible clearly teaches the special creation of human beings. Rapid Cenozoic evolution within baramins explains much of the fossil order but requires a powerful mechanism. Wise (2002, pp. 216217) and Wood (2002) suggested mechanisms built into baramins at their creation that would provide for rapid diversiWcation and adaptation. Once again this reduces the number of miracles but leaves the model on a foundation of faith. A troublesome issue in these models is that multiple causes are invoked to explain the same phenomena. The fossil record, which has similar patterns throughout, is partly attributed to sequential catastrophic destruction of biogeographic zones (Paleozoic/Mesozoic) and partly to rapid evolution (Cenozoic). The nested hierarchy of taxonomic groups is partly attributed to Gods creative acts (Kingdom to Family level) and partly to adaptive evolution (Genus and Species level), even though no demarcation is evident. Therefore these models lack the unity of cause that is a hallmark of good scientiWc theories.

6 The Ice Age One of the most enigmatic but widely accepted events in young-earth creationism is a postFlood ice age. The enigma is that neither the Bible nor other historic writings describe such an event, and the geologic evidence places it much earlier in human history than these creationists are willing to accept. But having attributed nearly the entire stratigraphic record to the Flood and its aftermath, the glacial deposits that cap the sequence demand an explanation: On the one hand, extensive glacial deposits cover the surface of mid and high latitude continents, providing undeniable evidence of extensive past glaciation. On the other hand, atmospheric science and related disciplines strongly suggest that an ice age, which depends upon present processes, (uniformitarianism) is nearly impossible. The only other possible solution is with a catastrophic mechanism. The model presented in this monograph is based on the historicity of the Bible, especially in its account of Creation and the Genesis Flood. Both scientiWc and religious implications are involved. (Oard 1990, p. 20) The proposed solution takes advantage of heat energy left over from the violent events of the Flood: Moisture for snow would have come from an ocean that had been warmed by volcanism, meteorite impacts, lava Xows, the friction of tectonics, and possibly water from the crust during the eruption of the fountains of the great deep. The warm water would have been well mixed during the turbulence of the Flood and would have extended from pole to pole and from the surface of the ocean to the ocean Xoor. A well-known principle that aVects the formation of clouds and precipitation is: the warmer the water, the greater the evaporation. Such a warm water ocean would allow huge amounts of moisture to evaporate at mid- and high latitudes, which would be picked up by storms and dumped as rain and snow on the nearby continents. This powerful evaporation would continue for hundreds of years until the oceans cooled. Once the oceans cooled, the Ice Age would end because of reduced moisture. (Oard 2005, p. 41) Oard (1990) took advantage of ambiguities and disagreements over what caused the Ice Age to suggest that warm water generated by the Flood provided a natural explanation. He

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1355

admitted that oxygen isotope values in seaXoor shells did not support his model well, yet he still took solace in them: Paleocene ocean-bottom temperatures are claimed in uniformitarian calculations to have been as warm as 55F. Late Cretaceous oceans are speciWed a little warmer than Paleocene. Normally, pre-Quaternary sediments are classiWed as Flood deposits. However, the foraminifera shells are unconsolidated on the bottom of the ocean, and likely were deposited in the late stages of the Flood, and in the ice age. Although warmer than the present ocean, these temperatures are signiWcantly cooler than claimed, in this monograph, for the ocean temperature at the beginning of the ice age. Given the many variables and assumptions in oxygen isotope temperature estimates, we should not use the uniformitarian numbers quantitatively, but would consider their qualitative trend to be in the right direction. (Oard 1990, p. 71, references removed) Employing a variety of non-uniformitarian assumptions, Oard (1990, pp. 97, 116, 192; 2005, pp. 4142) calculated that the Ice Age lasted about 700 years and ended within the last several millennia. He found convenient ways to solve a number of problems, for example: A major time-scale problem is the depth of the biogenic sediments on the bottom of the ocean. From present estimates, these sediments would need millions of years to accumulate. But the Flood and a post-Flood ice age can potentially account for these sediments in a short time. Due to rapid mixing of the ocean during the ice age, a large Xux of nutrients would have been available for very large numbers of plankton. Shells, from zooplankton, would not dissolve as fast as they do today, and would have accumulated more rapidly on the bottom of the ocean. (Oard 1990, p. 193) Oard also devoted much eVort to dismissing the idea of multiple glacial cycles during the Pleistocene (Oard 1990), attributing ice core layers to subannual events (Oard 2005; also Vardiman 1993, 2001), and dismissing all pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits as resulting from submarine landslides during the Flood (Oard 1997). Oard and Vardiman proposed no miracles in explaining the ice age and existing ice sheets, except as natural consequences of the miraculous Flood: A post-Flood, rapid ice age, supports the Genesis Flood, which further supports the historicity of the Bible. It also adds credence to the God of the Bible, and to the spiritual message in the Bible. A God who has control of the earth, can cause a global Flood, and allow an ice age is very powerful. He is even more powerful and intelligent for having created the entire universe. He is a master mathematician, engineer, and artist. Only the God of power and love described in the Bible, is up to the task. (Oard 1990, p. 197)

7 Conclusion The historical models being built by young-earth creationists allow us to analyze their thinking closely. It is clear from each example above that scripture holds ultimate authority, and scientiWc data must be interpreted within that constraint. The short timescale allowed by a literal reading of Genesis essentially forces them to explain a large number of historical events using a few Biblical catastrophes, particularly the Flood of Noah. What is more

1C

1356

T. H. Heaton

subtle is that this strategy, in turn, imposes extra-Biblical elements on their theology. The Flood has now been linked to resurfacing of most of the earths crust and building of mountains (Austin et al. 1994; Wise 2002), deposition of most sedimentary rocks and fossils (Austin 1994; Wise 2002), the extinction of many baramins (Wood and Murray 2003, pp. 4244), the ice age (Oard 1990, 2005), an intense heat and radiation event from accelerated radioactive decay (Humphreys 2005), and even extraterrestrial events such as asteroid impacts (Wise 2002, pp. 206209) and a rapid expansion of the universe (Humphreys 2005, p. 73)! Compared to these claims, a simple reading of Genesis makes the Flood of Noah sound remarkably benign. A wooden ark would seem to provide little protection in a catastrophe like the one being advocated. What can we learn about faith-based science from an analysis of young-earth creationism? First, to creationists the boundary between the natural and the supernatural is always arbitrary. Once miracles are allowed, there are no rules to determine the number and nature of such miracles or to test their validity. Minimizing the number of miracles beneWts young-earth creationists in building models, but only by making their models slightly more scientiWc. The logical extension is to give up miracles entirely. Second we see that faith is more of a constraint than a beneWt. The Bible may make historical claims that are worth testing, but believers continue to have faith in these claims whether they are scientiWcally veriWed or discredited. The RATE group proposed a miracle to accelerate nuclear decay, then proposed additional miracles to cover up its lethal eVectsall to circumvent the possibility that the earth is older than their interpretation of the Bible allows. Similar ploys were used to explain tectonic plate motions, the fossil record, and the Ice Age in a young-earth timeframe. When a study has established its conclusions before it begins, there is no reason to conduct the study. It is understandable that people of faith want to harmonize their beliefs with the observations of science. Moreover, it is clear from the writings of young-earth creationists cited in this paper that they love science and want it to be a functional enterprise within the context of their Christian belief system. Science, however, is based on testable hypotheses and comprehensible cause and eVect relationships. Miracles are excluded because they appeal to something unknown and therefore lead nowhere. Modern young-earth creationists have attempted to overcome this restriction by proposing detailed historical models with some testable predictions to compare with prevailing scientiWc models. In essence they are trying to pursue a scientiWc methodology within certain boundariesthose boundaries being the major miracles that are central to their faith. By doing so some historical events, such as tectonic plate motions and the ice age, can be studied based on purely natural causes, and this permits logical comparison between their models and competing ones. The sticking point is their unwillingness to abandon certain faith-based beliefs, such a young earth, in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence that they themselves acknowledge. Instead they seek ad hoc explanations to harmonize the data with their beliefs, even if these explanations are cumbersome and untestable, and as a result their science quickly degenerates into mere story telling. The strategy being invoked by young-earth creationists diVers considerably from that of intelligent design advocates, who propose no historical models at all. Instead they search for gaps in scientiWc knowledge, such as structures with unknown origins, and insist that some miraculous cause had to be responsible. Since there are a large number of such gaps, Wlling some of them through scientiWc study does not present a threat to their movement. By criticizing scientiWc conclusions they hope to engender doubt and let intelligent design win by default. But the inherent untestability of their designer, who is never deWned in terms of either strategy or motivation, makes this approach anti-scientiWc. It merely

1C

Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology

1357

harkens back to the days when evolution bashing was the central activity of young-earth creationists. One conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that science and faith simply do not mix well. While young-earth creationists are to be commended for their honesty and constructive eVorts, they still fall short of engaging in real science because of the absolute authority they give to their faith. They cannot functionally integrate with the scientiWc community if tangible elements of their models are sacred and oV limits to testing. That approach deWes the whole scientiWc enterprise. In order to gain scientiWc respectability the advocates of supernatural causes need to admit where their science ends and their faith begins, propose historical models that contain testable elements, and accept the results of those tests even if it means revising elements of their faith.

References
Austin SA (1994) Grand canyon: monument to catastrophe. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon Austin SA, Baumgardner JR, Humphreys DR, Snelling AA, Vardiman L, Wise KP (1994) Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global Flood model of earth history. In: Walsh RE (ed) Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 609621 Baumgardner JR (1987) Numerical simulations of the large-scale tectonic changes accompanying the Flood. In: Walsh RE, Brooks CL, Crowell RS (eds) Proceedings of the Wrst international conference on creationism, vol 2. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 1730 Baumgardner JR (1990) 3-D Wnite element simulation of the global tectonic changes accompanying Noahs Flood. In: Walsh RE, Brooks CL (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol 2. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 3545 Baumgardner JR (2002a) Dealing carefully with the data. J Creat 16(1):6872 Baumgardner JR (2002b) A constructive quest for truth. J Creation 16(1):7881 Baumgardner JR (2003) Catastrophic plate tectonics: the physics behind the Genesis Flood. In: Ivey RL Jr (ed) Proceedings of the Wfth international conference on creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 113126 Baumgardner JR (2005) 14C evidence for a recent global Xood and a young earth. In: Vardiman L, Snelling AA, ChaYn EF (eds) Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, vol II: results of a young-earth creationist research initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, pp 587630 Clark H (1946) The new diluvialism. Science Publications, Angwin Clark H (1968) Fossils, Xood, and Wre. Outdoor Pictures, Escondida DeYoung D (2005) Thousands not billions: challenging an icon of evolution, questioning the age of the earth. Master Books, Forest Green Froede CR Jr (2000) Questions regarding the Wilson cycle in plate tectonics and catastrophic plate tectonics. In: Reed JK (ed) Plate tectonics: a diVerent view. Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, pp 147160 Horstmeyer MF, Baumgardner JR (2003) What initiated the Flood cataclysm? In: Ivey RL Jr (ed) Proceedings of the Wfth international conference on creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 155164 Humphreys DR (1986) Reversals of the earths magnetic Weld during the Genesis Flood. In: Walsh RE, Brooks CL, Crowell RS (eds) Proceedings of the Wrst international conference on creationism, vol 2. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 113126 Humphreys DR (1990) Physical mechanism for reversals of the earths magnetic Weld during the Flood. In: Walsh RE, Brooks CL (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol 2. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 130137 Humphreys DR (2000) Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis? In: Vardiman L, Snelling AA, ChaYn EF (eds) Radioisotopes and the age of the earth: a young-earth creationist research initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, pp 333379 Humphreys DR (2005) Young helium diVusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay. In: Vardiman L, Snelling AA, ChaYn EF (eds) Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, vol II: results of a young-earth creationist research initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, pp 25100 Marsh FL (1941) Fundamental Biology. Self-published, Lincoln Marsh FL (1944) Evolution, creation, and science. Review and Herald, Washington, DC Morris HM (1972) The remarkable birth of planet earth. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego Morris HM (1974) ScientiWc creationism. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego

1C

1358

T. H. Heaton

Morris JD (2003) Creation ministrys strategy for the future. In: Fifth international conference on creationism, evening session 1, audio MP3. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh Oard MJ (1990) An ice age caused by the Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon Oard MJ (1997) Ancient ice ages or gigantic submarine landslides? Creation Research Society Monograph Series, No. 5 Oard MJ (2000) Subduction unlikelyplate tectonics improbable. In: Reed JK (ed) Plate tectonics: a diVerent view. Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, pp 93145 Oard MJ (2002a) Is catastrophic plate tectonics part of earth history? J Creat 16(1):6468 Oard MJ (2002b) Does the catastrophic plate tectonics model assume too much uniformitarianism? J Creat 16(1):7377 Oard MJ (2002c) Dealing carefully with the data. J Creat 16(1):8285 Oard MJ (2005) The frozen record: examining the ice core history of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon Oard MJ (Undated) Evidence for the run-o V of the Xood waters. http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio. aspx?Speaker_ID=24 Price GM (1916) Back to the Bible or the New Protestantism. Review and Herald Pub, Washington, DC Price GM (1935) The modern Flood theory of geology. Fleming H. Revell, New York Reed JK, Bennett CB, Froede CR Jr, Oard MJ, Woodmorappe J (2000) An introduction to plate tectonics and catastrophic plate tectonics. In: Reed JK (ed) Plate tectonics: a diVerent view. Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, pp 1121 Vardiman L (1993) Ice cores and the age of the earth. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon Vardiman L (2001) Climates before and after the Genesis Flood: numerical models and their implications. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon Vardiman L (2005a) Introduction. In: Vardiman L, Snelling AA, ChaYn EF (eds) Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, vol II: results of a young-earth creationist research initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, pp 124 Vardiman L (2005b) What comes after RATE? Acts and facts, impact article #387. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon Vardiman L, Austin SA, Baumgardner JR, Boyd SW, ChaYn EF, DeYoung DB et al (2005) Summary of evidence for a young earth from the RATE project. In: Vardiman L, Snelling AA, ChaYn EF (eds) Radioisotopes and the age of the earth, vol II: results of a young-earth creationist research initiative. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, pp 735772 Whitcomb JC, Morris HM (1961) The Genesis Flood: the biblical record and its scientiWc implications. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, Philadelphia Wise KP (2002) Faith, form, and time. Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville Wise KP (2003) The pre-Flood Xoating forest: a study in paleontological pattern recognition. In: Ivey RL Jr (ed) Proceedings of the Wfth international conference on creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp 371382 Wise KP (2005) The Xores skeleton and human baraminology. Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, No. 6 Wood TC (2002) The AGEing process: rapid post-Flood intrabaraminic diversiWcation caused by altruistic genetic elements (AGEs). Origins 54:534 Wood TC (2006a) The Chimpanzee genome and the problem of biological similarity. Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, No. 7 Wood TC (2006b) The current status of baraminology. Creat Res Soc Q 43(3):149158 Wood TC, Murray KJ (2003) Understanding the pattern of life: origins and organization of the species. Broadman & Holman, Nashville

Author Biography
Timothy H. Heaton is Professor and Chair of Earth Sciences at the University of South Dakota. He holds
B.S. and M.S. degrees from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. from Harvard University, all in geology. His specialty is vertebrate paleontology, especially ice age mammals and birds of Alaska. In addition to his research he enjoys following the creationevolution debate and corresponding with creationists. His recent articles on the topic include Creationist Perspectives on Geology and A Visit to the New Creation Museum.

1C