What do you think?
Rate this book
Creation and the flood: An alternative to flood geology and theistic evolution
217 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1977
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 11, 2025
AN EXCELLENT (AND PERSUASIVE) CRITIQUE OF ‘YOUNG EARTH’ FLOOD GEOLOGY
At the time this book was published in 1977, Davis Young was a professor of Geology at the University of North Carolina; he has BSE, MS, and PhD degrees in geology, and is an elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. (His father, Edward J. Young, was also a very respected Reformed Old Testament scholar.)
He wrote in the Preface, “evangelical Christianity has been engaged in an intense controversy over the relationship of geology and the Bible… the publication a decade ago of ‘The Genesis Flood’ [by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb] … has brought about a stunning renaissance of flood geology in Christian circles… [and] has led to the formation of such organizations as the Creation Research Society… and the Institute for Creation Research… As an evangelical Christian who is a professional geologist, I am greatly concerned about this movement. On the one hand I am in agreement with … the high view of the Bible held by most members… On the other hand I believe that the flood geology is based on misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication of fundamental geological facts and principles… I believe that it is possible to combine good theology and good geology by having a truly BIBLICAL view of geology. To do this one needs to reject both the flood geology and theistic evolutionism…
“My father, Edward J. Young, and I had originally intended to collaborate on such a book as this. His untimely death in 1968 after 33 years as Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary… eliminated that possibility. Nonetheless I have been aided greatly by his voluminous writings… Hence the truly biblical theology which he loved … has rubbed off on me and, I trust, is evident in this book.” (Pg. 7-8)
He explains, “The law of superposition states that in any undisturbed stack of layered sedimentary or volcanic rocks the layer which is at the bottom of the pile must… have been deposited earlier, than the layer above it… There are, of course, exceptions to the law of superposition… the law… assumes that the entire stack of rocks has not been completely overturned so that it is now upside down… It is difficult, even for the most extreme catastrophist, to imagine that … thousands of square miles of rock could have been overturned en masse … without any signs of disruption… A second exception … occurs if a layer of intrusive igneous rock is sandwiched in between layers of sedimentary rock… Another exception … is provided by thrust faults. In this case one mass of layered rocks is shoved physically … over the top of another mass of layered rocks.” (Pg. 62-63)
He notes, “Whitcomb and Morris maintain that the present laws of physics and chemistry and the other sciences were not in existence during creation week, but that they have been in existence SINCE the fall of Adam. This would mean that these present laws were in existence during the time of the flood. Whitcomb and Morris do not seem to be at all concerned to present the flood in terms of pure miracle… A basic difficulty arises in that it is virtually impossible, on the Whitcomb and Morris theory, for the Christian geologist to know which rocks he may only describe…” (Pg. 76) He continues, “the exact boundary between created rocks and post-creation rocks can never be identified…” (Pg. 78)
He reports, “A century ago, Charles Hodge, the great Princeton theologian, in discussing creation and the word ‘yom’ [day], said [in Vol. I of his ‘Systematic Theology’] that ‘… taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory to adopt that other.’… Other theologians with no interest in … conceding to [science] felt that 24-hour days were not necessarily in view. E.J. Young maintained [in ‘Studies in Genesis One’] that ‘the length of the days is not stated.’ He also said that ‘if the word “day” is employed … to denote a period longer than 24 hours, so also may the terms ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ … be employed figuratively.” (Pg, 82-83)
He suggests, “If man is ‘split’ into a spirit-body complex, it is possible to view man as being created in the sense that his spirit was that part of man miraculously formed by God and without which man would not have been man. Thus the body of pre-man could be viewed as evolving in accordance with divinely-controlled biological laws and processes up to a point at which the spirit was miraculously formed in this pre-man.” (Pg. 105)
He observes, “Attractive as the vapor canopy theory may be, Scripture does not lend support to it. We have already seen that Psalm 104 indicates that the waters above the firmament are ordinary rain clouds… Psalm 148 flatly rules out the vapor canopy idea… In verse 4 the psalmist commands the ‘waters that be above’ the heavens to praise God… Obviously the psalmist, writing long after Noah’s flood, understood that the waters above the heavens still existed….” (Pg. 124)
He states, “Scripture does not say anywhere whether or not animals died before the fall. The only mention of death in the Genesis account is with reference to MAN… Scripture is silent on the question of the death of animals prior to the fall. It is possible that the vanity and bondage of the creatures mentioned in Romans 8 are not merely death, but rather the needlessly cruel and unnatural exploitation and abuse of the creation by man… [In Gen 2:17] man was not prohibited from eating meat but from eating the fruit of a specific tree… There is no pressing reason to argue that [dominion] excludes death. How else was Adam to have dominion over the fish?” (Pg. 164-165)
He points out, “many… igneous magmas could not possibly have lost their heat rapidly enough to crystallize during the flood years or soon after…” (Pg. 177) He continues, “The problem now confronting the Whitcomb/Morris theory is how to cool a sheet of liquids which is a thousand feet thick and whose temperature is about 1100 to 1200⁰C down to essentially room temperature in the span of one year or less!... approximately a FEW HUNDRED YEARS were required for the complete solidification of the Palisades sill.” (Pg. 183)
He notes, “Several catastrophists have made valiant attempts to discredit the radiometric methods… It is interesting that flood catastrophists have had very little to say about the [rubidium-strontium dating] method… The [rubidium/strontium] method is very useful in that it eliminates the need for guessing how much [strontium] was initially present in a rock when it was formed… Intelligent guesswork is thus eliminated.” (Pg. 186) He continues, “Not only can guesswork … regarding the initial [Strontium] content of a sample be eliminated by the isochron method, but the results of this method have demonstrated just how well-educated have been the guesses where guesswork is required by other radiometric methods.” (Pg. 190)
He continues, “Whitcomb and Morris are aware of the fact that [radioactive] decay constants generally are not subject to any more than insignificant variation because of external thermal, mechanical, or compositional factors. They have, however, argued that a significant increase in the cosmic ray flux on the earth’s surface would succeed in greatly speeding up the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Thus in order to explain the great apparent ages of rock presumably formed during the flood, the flood geologists are led to suggest that at the time of the flood a very great increase in cosmic ray influx caused greatly increased radioactive decay. This argument, however, does not salvage the flood theory… if the cosmic ray influx at the earth’s surface somehow increased dramatically, the effect on the radiometric age indicators of rocks … would be negligible. Moreover, the studies of meteorites have indicated that the cosmic ray flux in the solar system as a whole has probably been essentially constant for the last few million years.” (Pg. 192-193)
He then provides numerous examples to discredit the flood geology/young earth interpretation; e.g., “Hence the flood geologist is under the obligation of explaining in terms of this theory how it would have been possible in LESS THAN ONE YEAR for the New England rocks to be heated to around 600⁰ and cooled back to surface temperature, as well as buried to a depth of around twelve miles and brought all the way back to the surface!” (Pg. 196-197)
He goes on, “consider briefly how the idea of [continental] drift is devastating to the theory of ‘The Genesis Flood.’ … on the Whitcomb-Morris theory… the continents must have been joined together before the flood took place… the flood catastrophists must find some way of explaining how the continents could drift … to their present positions in a few thousand years… there does not appear to be evidence to support an extremely rapid rate of drift… Their only remaining options are either to deny the overwhelming evidence for continental drift or to find some other satisfactory explanation for it.” (Pg. 209-210)
This book (and Young’s other books, such as ‘Christianity and the Age of the Earth,’ ‘The Biblical Flood,’ and ‘The Bible, Rocks and Time’ will be “must reading” for any Christians studying geology, and the age of the earth.
At the time this book was published in 1977, Davis Young was a professor of Geology at the University of North Carolina; he has BSE, MS, and PhD degrees in geology, and is an elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. (His father, Edward J. Young, was also a very respected Reformed Old Testament scholar.)
He wrote in the Preface, “evangelical Christianity has been engaged in an intense controversy over the relationship of geology and the Bible… the publication a decade ago of ‘The Genesis Flood’ [by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb] … has brought about a stunning renaissance of flood geology in Christian circles… [and] has led to the formation of such organizations as the Creation Research Society… and the Institute for Creation Research… As an evangelical Christian who is a professional geologist, I am greatly concerned about this movement. On the one hand I am in agreement with … the high view of the Bible held by most members… On the other hand I believe that the flood geology is based on misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication of fundamental geological facts and principles… I believe that it is possible to combine good theology and good geology by having a truly BIBLICAL view of geology. To do this one needs to reject both the flood geology and theistic evolutionism…
“My father, Edward J. Young, and I had originally intended to collaborate on such a book as this. His untimely death in 1968 after 33 years as Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary… eliminated that possibility. Nonetheless I have been aided greatly by his voluminous writings… Hence the truly biblical theology which he loved … has rubbed off on me and, I trust, is evident in this book.” (Pg. 7-8)
He explains, “The law of superposition states that in any undisturbed stack of layered sedimentary or volcanic rocks the layer which is at the bottom of the pile must… have been deposited earlier, than the layer above it… There are, of course, exceptions to the law of superposition… the law… assumes that the entire stack of rocks has not been completely overturned so that it is now upside down… It is difficult, even for the most extreme catastrophist, to imagine that … thousands of square miles of rock could have been overturned en masse … without any signs of disruption… A second exception … occurs if a layer of intrusive igneous rock is sandwiched in between layers of sedimentary rock… Another exception … is provided by thrust faults. In this case one mass of layered rocks is shoved physically … over the top of another mass of layered rocks.” (Pg. 62-63)
He notes, “Whitcomb and Morris maintain that the present laws of physics and chemistry and the other sciences were not in existence during creation week, but that they have been in existence SINCE the fall of Adam. This would mean that these present laws were in existence during the time of the flood. Whitcomb and Morris do not seem to be at all concerned to present the flood in terms of pure miracle… A basic difficulty arises in that it is virtually impossible, on the Whitcomb and Morris theory, for the Christian geologist to know which rocks he may only describe…” (Pg. 76) He continues, “the exact boundary between created rocks and post-creation rocks can never be identified…” (Pg. 78)
He reports, “A century ago, Charles Hodge, the great Princeton theologian, in discussing creation and the word ‘yom’ [day], said [in Vol. I of his ‘Systematic Theology’] that ‘… taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory to adopt that other.’… Other theologians with no interest in … conceding to [science] felt that 24-hour days were not necessarily in view. E.J. Young maintained [in ‘Studies in Genesis One’] that ‘the length of the days is not stated.’ He also said that ‘if the word “day” is employed … to denote a period longer than 24 hours, so also may the terms ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ … be employed figuratively.” (Pg, 82-83)
He suggests, “If man is ‘split’ into a spirit-body complex, it is possible to view man as being created in the sense that his spirit was that part of man miraculously formed by God and without which man would not have been man. Thus the body of pre-man could be viewed as evolving in accordance with divinely-controlled biological laws and processes up to a point at which the spirit was miraculously formed in this pre-man.” (Pg. 105)
He observes, “Attractive as the vapor canopy theory may be, Scripture does not lend support to it. We have already seen that Psalm 104 indicates that the waters above the firmament are ordinary rain clouds… Psalm 148 flatly rules out the vapor canopy idea… In verse 4 the psalmist commands the ‘waters that be above’ the heavens to praise God… Obviously the psalmist, writing long after Noah’s flood, understood that the waters above the heavens still existed….” (Pg. 124)
He states, “Scripture does not say anywhere whether or not animals died before the fall. The only mention of death in the Genesis account is with reference to MAN… Scripture is silent on the question of the death of animals prior to the fall. It is possible that the vanity and bondage of the creatures mentioned in Romans 8 are not merely death, but rather the needlessly cruel and unnatural exploitation and abuse of the creation by man… [In Gen 2:17] man was not prohibited from eating meat but from eating the fruit of a specific tree… There is no pressing reason to argue that [dominion] excludes death. How else was Adam to have dominion over the fish?” (Pg. 164-165)
He points out, “many… igneous magmas could not possibly have lost their heat rapidly enough to crystallize during the flood years or soon after…” (Pg. 177) He continues, “The problem now confronting the Whitcomb/Morris theory is how to cool a sheet of liquids which is a thousand feet thick and whose temperature is about 1100 to 1200⁰C down to essentially room temperature in the span of one year or less!... approximately a FEW HUNDRED YEARS were required for the complete solidification of the Palisades sill.” (Pg. 183)
He notes, “Several catastrophists have made valiant attempts to discredit the radiometric methods… It is interesting that flood catastrophists have had very little to say about the [rubidium-strontium dating] method… The [rubidium/strontium] method is very useful in that it eliminates the need for guessing how much [strontium] was initially present in a rock when it was formed… Intelligent guesswork is thus eliminated.” (Pg. 186) He continues, “Not only can guesswork … regarding the initial [Strontium] content of a sample be eliminated by the isochron method, but the results of this method have demonstrated just how well-educated have been the guesses where guesswork is required by other radiometric methods.” (Pg. 190)
He continues, “Whitcomb and Morris are aware of the fact that [radioactive] decay constants generally are not subject to any more than insignificant variation because of external thermal, mechanical, or compositional factors. They have, however, argued that a significant increase in the cosmic ray flux on the earth’s surface would succeed in greatly speeding up the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Thus in order to explain the great apparent ages of rock presumably formed during the flood, the flood geologists are led to suggest that at the time of the flood a very great increase in cosmic ray influx caused greatly increased radioactive decay. This argument, however, does not salvage the flood theory… if the cosmic ray influx at the earth’s surface somehow increased dramatically, the effect on the radiometric age indicators of rocks … would be negligible. Moreover, the studies of meteorites have indicated that the cosmic ray flux in the solar system as a whole has probably been essentially constant for the last few million years.” (Pg. 192-193)
He then provides numerous examples to discredit the flood geology/young earth interpretation; e.g., “Hence the flood geologist is under the obligation of explaining in terms of this theory how it would have been possible in LESS THAN ONE YEAR for the New England rocks to be heated to around 600⁰ and cooled back to surface temperature, as well as buried to a depth of around twelve miles and brought all the way back to the surface!” (Pg. 196-197)
He goes on, “consider briefly how the idea of [continental] drift is devastating to the theory of ‘The Genesis Flood.’ … on the Whitcomb-Morris theory… the continents must have been joined together before the flood took place… the flood catastrophists must find some way of explaining how the continents could drift … to their present positions in a few thousand years… there does not appear to be evidence to support an extremely rapid rate of drift… Their only remaining options are either to deny the overwhelming evidence for continental drift or to find some other satisfactory explanation for it.” (Pg. 209-210)
This book (and Young’s other books, such as ‘Christianity and the Age of the Earth,’ ‘The Biblical Flood,’ and ‘The Bible, Rocks and Time’ will be “must reading” for any Christians studying geology, and the age of the earth.
Displaying 1 of 1 review