Thanks for getting us off to nice a start, Jeff. I will do my best—and due to limited time today I will probably be calling upon others to help flesh out some of my points with more details and perhaps more citations.
I have great interest in that concept, not only because I grew up in that “creation science” environment but also because I knew John Whitcomb Jr. well enough to ask him some pointed questions about his landmark book about the Noahic Flood. (Perhaps I’ll return to those specifics at another time.)
My first reaction is a question: Is evidence of a global flood evidence for a young earth? No. Not necessarily. Indeed, no collection of evidence for “great floods” in various regions of the world—on its own—would require a conclusion of a global great flood. (In fact, it is that LACK of universality of convincing evidence of a recent great flood in so many regions that helps explain why I left the global flood camp.) No geologist/geomorphologist denies that water and sedimentary deposits and floods of all sizes have had enormous impact on the earth’s outer layers.
And I would also ask the related question: "Why don’t more non-secular (i.e., Christian) geologists come to believe in a global flood?” Very few of them are YEC global flood proponents. And in my experience, the very few who exist are not working in fields of geology which require a thorough understanding of the strata and the geologic forces that help one find profitable oil fields. For years I was told it was because “they are afraid for their jobs” but as I got to know Christian evangelicals who were tenured geology professors and professional petroleum field geologists, I noticed that they were amused by that suggestion. (By the way, flat-earth make the same claims about “compromisers” and those “worried about losing their jobs.”)
I also can’t help but reflect upon the Noahic Flood-affirming founders of modern geology who actually were seeking more evidence for a global flood but were overwhelmed by the evidence to the contrary. Nicolas Steno and George Cuvier come to mind. (I’ve heard of others but the names don’t come to mind at the moment.)
Again, the main argument used by Answers in Genesis and other YEC organizations for explaining why even Christian geologists reject the global flood is that they are “compromisers.” Of course, an insult is not evidence—and I remember years ago when I was wrestling with the contrary evidence that was building in my grappling with the global flood idea and being frustrated when I would get that kind of “answer” from Whitcomb or Duane Gish. It struck me as a last resort when one has no good defense of one’s position and an insult is what pleases audiences. (They would get applause at any lashing out against "Bible-rejecting compromising Christians. Ken Ham employs that tactic constantly.)
Back in those days (the 1960’s and 1970’s) the same tactic of finding even just one scientist who supported a global flood and had some sort of professional/academic credentials was the focus. Henry Morris, am “expert hydrologist” was that kind of personna that Ron Neller represents today. But it begs the question: Why are there literally THOUSANDS of hydrologists/geomorphologists who completely disagree-- some of whom have written point-by-point refutations?
Yes, Ron Neller has become a favorite YEC geomorphologist, and I’ve noticed that he is often mentioned as if his specialty is a rare one such that his perspective is especially important. But in the past I have tried to determine how many PhD fluvial geomorphologists there are and it is a difficult number to pin down. Nevertheless, based on the memberships of various geomorphology societies and their subdivisions into “fluvial categories”, it seemed to me that hundreds, if not thousands of them exist. Of course, there is no “official title registration” that I know of where some exact definitions determines who can rightly call themselves a fluvial geomorphologist, so this tangent can easily degenerate into silliness. But I’m simply setting the stage for the fact that, even if Neller is one global flood embracing fluvial geomorphologist, I want to know why hundreds of others are not.
For that question, I will start by noting that even I as a non-geologist find Neller’s arguments quite weak. Here’s my reaction as I try to paraphrase his major points:
(1) 70% of continents are covered by sedimentary rock.
So what? There are many ways/processes/events by which sedimentary rock can form. The fact that we find evidence of water forming sedimentary rock all over the world doesn’t require one planet-wide event a few thousand years ago. Not even close. His argument is just filler which impresses poorly informed audiences.
(2) Underfit rivers are too small for explaining the valleys where they flow.
It depends upon the valley. And why would anyone assume that those rivers were always that small? Or that some mass of water event in the past, such as great ice dam bursts/releases, could not have done the initial “excavation” which was later occupied by the natural flow of a river fed by rainfall in that valley or gorge?
(3) 40% of continents are sedimentary plateaus. And many are slightly eroded and should be deeply eroded if millions of years old.
I think I had no more than two semesters of geology in college and this one is almost too lame for words. Neller doesn’t tell his audience that even some sandstones and limestones are VERY resistant to erosion—and Neller’s “best” examples are from extremely arid areas where there is limited rain and runoff to do the erosion. (He also fails to mention the role of geologic uplift, which can “cancel out” the pace of erosion so that there is no formation of a river valley or gorge. I understand that there are also sedimentary plateaus which are protected by a very resistant caprock, such as with lava flows forming extrusive igneous layers.)
(4) Some areas of the world (e.g., Finland) show evidence of only one ice age (or in my day some YECs called the Noahic Flood a great ice/water age.)
It is my understanding that in some areas the latest ice age wiped out much/most of the evidence of prior ice ages—but never 100% of that evidence. So this argument is lame, IMHO.
(5) Today’s sedimentation rates are slow. They can’t explain what we see, even over vast time periods.
Face-palm. Neller does what used to drive me nuts when I was wrestling with the claims of my YEC associates: they flip-flop on rates and uniformitarianism as it suits them. They claim that one can’t judge by modern day rates because “nobody knows the rates of the past” and “uniformitarianism is bad.” But geologists never claim that every geologic formation must be created very gradually. Catastrophism (sudden massive events) happen and we can see the evidence for them (and those events have much better explanations than a recent global flood.)
(6) Fossilization requires rapid burial that must have happened in a great flood.
No. If I had studied for a geology test I could probably give a whole list of alternative explanations. But the first which comes to my mind is anoxic conditions, such as at the bottom of deep lakes. Plus, dead organisms can stay relatively intact for years in various soils/subsoil types (after a non-rapid burial) and then groundwater rich in minerals can seep in and gradually fossilize the remains. So, again, Neller either forgot a lot of basic geology/paleontology— or . . . well . . . I don’t want to say it, but I will GENERALIZE about YEC associates I used to know: They disingenuously avoid telling their audiences how easily their claims are refuted by their professional/academic colleagues or even a first-year textbook. Indeed, it was my frustration with the outright grifter-dishonesty of some of the people I knew in the “creation science” world that helped propel me out of that community.)
(7) Satellite imagery and related tools have changed how we look at the earth.
I agree. And those changes are ENTIRELY away from a recent great flood event.
Those are seven really really poor arguments.
That’s all I have time for right now. But I appreciate the reminder of Neller’s work. I had largely forgotten his name but gradually noticed the familiarity of his weak arguments.
POSTSCRIPT: I hate to overuse the term—as it is also being used often in the present political environment—but I can’t help but observe that Neller is gaslighting his followers. If anyone thinks my observation is unfair, by all means explain how I am wrong.
). But it’s worth the effort.
My life is busy but it is nothing like my academic years long ago.)