Creation Research Society

What about the geological column?

Originally, the geological column was conceived in the context of uniformitarianism. Not all uniformitarian assumptions are true and useful, and this is shown in the idea of the “geological column.” Uniformitarianism states that everything develops or changes gradually and slowly. In order to discredit creation, some naturalists applied this idea to geology and then Darwin applied this idea to biology.*

But not all interpretations are so straightforward. Geologists in the early-to-mid 1800s developed a sequence of changing organisms with time, reflected in the geological column. The time scale with its millions and billions of years was added later by various dating methods. The column was first developed mainly in the United Kingdom and then applied to the whole world. The geological column makes a lot of sense locally and regionally, but it must be shown to be a global sequence, including the ocean bottom sediments. We need to get away from the Grand Staircase and the Grand Canyon as the “proof area.”

Modern science has shown that the fossil changes between layers in the geological column is not an evolutionary progression, as secular scientists once hoped, assuming fossils changed from simple to complex with time. Modern science has shown that all these organisms are very complex—they are just different organisms, although a few general patterns are revealed. For instance, one of the earliest organisms in the geological column, the trilobite, had very complex eyes. Moreover, there is a lack of transitions between major kinds of organisms, as expected in the creation model (Bergman, 2017). The fossil record merely shows sudden appearances, stasis, and then disappearances.

Creation scientists view most fossils as having been buried in Noah’s Flood. Then is the geological column a useful interpretation? Creation scientists are divided on this issue. Even we are divided on the issue. That is why we attempted to resolve the issue, or at least start to resolve this issue, by publishing a forum on the subject (Reed and Oard, 2006). In this forum, advocates who believed the geological column was a precise, global burial sequence of Noah’s Flood; those who believed we should reject the geological column; and those in between, all wrote up their evidence. Then each participant read the papers of the others, and they were required to provide answers to their challenges. It was all done in charity, the way it should work, but unfortunately the question was not resolved. The project showed how to approach such problems. It will take much work and an ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in the literature. At a minimum, respecting each other’s opinions is required until more progress is made. Maybe another published forum is in order?

* Uniformitarianism was an arbitrary assumption developed to discredit and replace biblical history (Oard and Reed, 2017; in press). It seemed plausible in the 1800s, based mainly on three specific geological arguments that supposedly contradicted the Flood. These were: (1) volcanic deposits, (2) the erosion of valleys, and (3) the presence of thick sedimentary rocks. In retrospect, those arguments were simplistic, false, and better explained by the Flood (Oard and Reed, 2018).

In addition to significant logical shortcomings (Reed, 2010), uniformitarianism has run afoul of reality from its inception. Evidence of catastrophes in the rock record are indisputable, including the Ice Age, the Lake Missoula flood, and meteorite or comet impacts. After first rejecting these catastrophes, geologists now claim they are a part of the “uniform history” of earth, proving that self-contradiction is alive and well today. Despite such evidence, rocks and fossils are interpreted within a uniformitarian framework. But many characteristics of rocks and fossils demand a catastrophic interpretation. Sandstones are a good example (Reed and Oard, in press). Are there any aspects of the rock record that demand uniformitarianism? We might see a few. We must weigh possibilities using the principle laid down in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NASB): “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.”

-----
This Why Geology Matters column (What Uniformitarian Interpretations Should Creation Scientists Accept?) by CRS board members Mike Oard and John Reed appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 24, No. 4, July/August/September 2019.

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org ... See MoreSee Less