Content uploaded by Andrew Kulikovsky
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Kulikovsky on Jan 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Introduction
During the eighteenth century, Enlight-
enment intellectuals used the strati-
graphic record as an excuse to reject the
Biblical Flood as the primary geological
agent that shaped Earth’s crust (Rud-
wick, 2005). Their goal was the larger
rejection of Biblical authority, and the
use of geology as a weapon against Chris-
Can Recolonization Explain the Rock Record?
John K. Reed, Andrew S. Kulikovsky, and Michael J. Oard*
Abstract
T
T
he recolonization model is a recently proposed diluvial solution to
many enigmas of the rock record. Working within the framework
many enigmas of the rock record. Working within the framework
of the global stratigraphic succession developed by uniformitarian ge-
ologists over the past two centuries, it seeks to reconcile it with Biblical
history by moving the Flood event to the very base of the stratigraphic
record. Thus the Flood is represented by that section that extends
from the oldest crustal rocks (Hadean) up into the Carboniferous. The
post-Carboniferous record refl ects a sequential terrestrial recoloniza-
tion by Flood survivors, preserved as a series of historical snapshots by
post-Flood catastrophes. Although appealing in its attempt to merge
the geologic column with Genesis, the model’s positive arguments are
unconvincing. An evaluation of Biblical, axiomatic, logical, and geo-
logical issues reveals signifi cant weaknesses. Two of its greatest fl aws lie
in its two key assumptions: 1) the veracity of the geologic timescale’s
relative chronology, and 2) the validity of uniformitarian depositional
models.
* John K. Reed (corresponding author), 915 Hunting Horn Way,
Evans, GA 30809, Jkenr2@comcast.net
Andrew S. Kulikovsky, 15 Prince of Wales Court,
Wynn Vale, SA, Australia, 5127, andrew@kulikovskyonline.net
Michael J. Oard, 34 W. Clara Court, Bozeman, MT 59718,
mikeoard@highstream.net
Accepted for publication June 12, 2009
tianity continues to this day. Christians
have derived a number of novel ideas to
address this problem—some ridiculous,
some intriguing. Though the philo-
sophical context is becoming clearer, the
stratigraphic issues remain unresolved,
as illustrated by the variety of opinions
in the 2006 symposium,
The Geologic
Column: Perspectives within Diluvial
Geology
, published by the Creation
Research Society.
Since Steno (1638–1686), Christian
naturalists have attempted to correlate
the Flood event with a particular divi-
sion of strata, while secular thinkers
have sought to deny any link. Early in
the Enlightenment, there was a ten-
dency to minimize the Flood by moving
it ever higher in the stratigraphic record.
Although geologists gave lip service
to the Flood up into the early 1800s,
they diminished its relevance by rel-
egating it to the uppermost sediments,
which were called “diluvium.” When
Louis Agassiz presented his theory of
glaciation, uniformitarians welcomed
the opportunity to exorcise the Flood
from the rock record altogether instead
28
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Research Society Quarterly
of revisiting their earlier (incorrect)
interpretations.
Whitcomb and Morris (1961) resisted
the secular tide by attributing most of the
sedimentary rock record to the Flood—a
position still held by many creationists. In
recent years, the Flood has been migrat-
ing stratigraphically once more; only this
time it is moving
lower
in the section
lower in the section lower
(Hunter, 2000; Tyler, 2006). Perhaps
the most comprehensive example of this
trend is the “recolonization model”—a
theory that presents several novel ideas.
Proponents of these ideas are Chris-
tians and creationists, and we see the
discussion as being “within the family,”
rather than evidence of compromise or
apostasy. Thus, their models deserve
the same respect (and scrutiny) as other
creation models and should be assessed
in similar fashion for their (1) Biblical
fi delity, (2) presuppositional and logi-
cal consistency, and (3) empirical cor-
respondence to the phenomena to be
explained—in that order of priority.
Although “recolonizers” reject the
billions of years of deep time, they also
reject the possibility that the bulk of the
sedimentary rock record formed during
the year of the Flood and so are forced
to conclude that much of it is a product
of post-Flood catastrophism. Dr. David
Tyler’s (2006) synopsis describes exten-
sive fossilization and sedimentation after
the Flood, which he posits as ending
with the Carboniferous strata.
In his model, the hyper-catastrophic
onset of the Flood obliterated most ante-
diluvian organisms, and so most fossils in
the sedimentary record are descendents
of marine survivors of the deluge and
terrestrial animals aboard the ark. This
logically demands the rapid and fecund
repopulation of marine and terrestrial
habitats during and soon after the Flood.
For that reason it is called the “recoloni-
zation model.” Our critique will focus
on Tyler’s (2006) presentation, though
other articles (pro and con) are present
in the literature and are included at the
end of our reference section.
What Is the
Recolonization Model?
We cannot understand the recoloniza-
tion model unless we understand the
driving force behind it. What assump-
tions and data drive the model? We
see two signifi cant factors. The fi rst is
the desire to accommodate the global
geological chronostratigraphic times-
cale (Gradstein et al., 2004), absent its
geochronologic component of billions
of years of prehistory. The key to under-
standing this conceptual construct—of-
ten called the geologic column—is
the assumption that the rock record is
best interpreted via globally correlative
sequential time periods, whether their
length is measured in days or millions
of years (Reed, 2008b). In other words,
strata can be best classifi ed by their time
of deposition or emplacement and then
correlated globally on the basis of that
time, since time’s progression is a global
constant. For example, the recoloniza-
tion model rejects the timing of the
“Cretaceous Period” as being 145.5 mil-
lion years ago (Ma) to 65.5 Ma, but it ac-
cepts the “Cretaceous” as a real interval
of Earth’s history by which otherwise
disparate rocks can be correlated world-
wide. It also accepts the relative position
of the “Cretaceous Period” to other time
periods of the timescale (Figure 1).
A second factor driving the recolo-
nization model is the perceived need to
accommodate various uniformitarian
depositional theories. These explana-
tions tend to default to slow, low-en-
ergy environments, similar to those
observed today. The recolonization
model recognizes that many processes
are quantitatively more rapid than the
rates proposed by secular researchers but
does not require qualitatively different
processes, such as would be expected to
accommodate the one-year time frame
of the Flood. Dinosaur trackways and
nests are commonly cited examples
of features requiring time in excess of
the Biblical chronology. According to
Tyler (2006) and others, these features
contradict continuous catastrophic de-
position and thus cannot be integrated
with the Flood.
Based on these premises, the model
follows. In order to maintain a signifi -
cant presence for the Flood in the rock
record, and yet still attribute much of the
sedimentary record to post-Flood time,
Tyler moves the onset of that catastrophe
to the oldest remnants of igneous and
metamorphic crust on Earth. He notes
that the beginning of the Flood was so
intensely violent that it destroyed the
original crust, stripping it down to the
lower lithosphere (Figure 2). Tyler’s
view is similar to, but less radical than,
Hunter’s (1996; 2000) model, which
places the pre-Flood boundary at the 660
km discontinuity in the mantle.
Thus the Flood began with the
complete destruction of the crust on
Figure 1. The geologic timescale
showing both the relative chronostrati-
graphic arrangement that is assumed to
be the same all over the globe (absent
erosion and non-deposition), and the
geochronologic ages currently accept-
ed by uniformitarian geologists.
Volume 46, Summer 2009 29
the fi rst day, and the reconstruction of
its crystalline components by the end
of the fi rst forty days. To emphasize
this special period of destruction, Tyler
(2006) applies the Hebrew term
mabbul
to the fi rst forty days of the Flood as a
distinct, especially destructive period
that accomplished the majority of geo-
logic work—not primarily sedimentary,
as commonly thought by most dilu-
vialists, but igneous and tectonic. He
believes that this period of the Flood
was so violent that practically all living
land creatures died on the very fi rst day
or soon after.
Did any survive outside of the Ark
after the fi rst day? The bursting forth
of all the springs is an indication that
the entire earth was awash with surg-
ing water on the very fi rst day. If any-
thing did survive, it could not have
been much longer than a day since
the inundation was so overwhelming.
The parallel Jesus drew with Sodom
and with His own return indicates
that the destruction of life was over
quickly (2006, p. 74).
It follows that terrestrial life was an-
nihilated on the fi rst day, leaving little
to no fossil traces. Even potential fossils
were destroyed.
All the sediments coming from the
antediluvian world would be mingled
with the products of igneous activity, ac-
companied by extensive metamorphism,
and this had the effect of obliterating
anything that might potentially have
become a fossil. In other words, the
world that then was, was destroyed (II
Peter 3:6) (Tyler, 2006, p. 76).
During this initial intense destruc-
tion, small populations of marine life
were preserved in quiescent deepwater
areas that Tyler calls “refugia.” As a con-
sequence, the complete fossil record is
not a record of the Flood’s destruction;
every fossilized organism was either a
survivor on the ark or of these marine
sanctuaries.
The initial crustal destruction (Day
1) and the
mabbul
(through Day 40) are
equated with the “Hadean” and/or the
lowest part of the Archean, depending on
which iteration of the geologic timescale
one accepts (“Hadean” is a new term
used by the International Commission
on Stratigraphy that denotes the time of
earliest crustal formation). After Day 40,
the springs of the great deep closed and
the fl oodgates of heaven stopped, and
the majority of the destruction ended.
What followed was the more conven-
tional sedimentary work of the Flood,
accompanied by a rapid recolonization
of the globe by marine life that had sur-
vived in the “refugia” and which quickly
began refi lling empty habitats over the
fl ooded shallow water continents. In this
less catastrophic period of the Flood, life
was fossilized in the order of its
re
appear-
ance: simple forms initially, followed by
more complex invertebrates (Figure 3).
The blue-green algae and bacteria were
the fi rst “refugians” to be fossilized and
appear in late Archean and Protero-
zoic sediments. Then, as more suitable
habitats became available, the first
multicellular life—the Ediacaran fau-
na—became established and preserved
in late Proterozoic (Vendian in Figure 3)
sediments as pioneers in environments
too harsh for other organisms. As the
Flood progressed, other environments
became survivable and were fi lled, as
documented by the “Cambrian explo-
sion.” Late in the Flood, “Devonian”
fi sh fi lled new habitats and began to be
fossilized in great numbers.
As the Flood receded, exposing new
terrestrial environments, plants took
root, having survived the
mabbul
in the
form of fl oating log and vegetation mats.
Since all air-breathing, land-dwelling
animals perished in the Flood, the only
animals available to recolonize the ter-
restrial environments were those on the
ark and their descendents. Tyler (2006)
proposes that these animals began to
fi ll the terrestrial environments and be
preserved as fossils in the order found
in the geologic timescale: on a gross
scale of amphibians-reptiles-mammals;
and on a fi ner scale with various small
(attributed to evolutionary successions
by secular naturalists), time-related
Figure 2. Earth’s lithosphere, which includes the crust and part of the upper
mantle, occupies the outermost skin of the planet, averaging 100 km and reaching
thicknesses of 200 km. In contrast, the average thickness of the continental crust
rarely exceeds 50 km and the average oceanic crust, 10 km.
30
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Research Society Quarterly
changes (e.g., ammonite species, horses,
microfossils). Thus, all air-breathing fos-
sils, such as dinosaurs, were descendents
of the ark’s survivors, lived after the
Flood, and were buried and fossilized
by post-Flood catastrophes in a global
sequential fashion congruent with a
time-stratigraphic approach.
Stratigraphically, that leaves the post-
Flood boundary—measured by the time
the animals exited the ark—as sometime
during the Carboniferous (Mississippian-
Pennsylvanian on Figure 3), which cor-
responds to the fi rst “appearance” of land
animals in the uniformitarian column.
Other European creationists had once
placed the boundary in the late Paleozo-
ic (Garner, 1996a; 1996b; Garton, 1996;
Robinson, 1996; Scheven, 1996; Tyler,
1996). There have been a few signifi cant
revisions in recent years. Robinson has
moved the boundary from just below the
Permian into the Precambrian (Garner
and Peet, 1999), based on environmen-
tal indicators such as hardgrounds. On
the other hand, Paul Garner (personal
communication, Oard) has set it at the
Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary.
So the recolonization model pres-
ents several distinctive propositions.
These include:
• The Flood event is represented
by the stratigraphic interval from
the earliest crust up into the
Carboniferous Period.
• The fossil record includes sur-
vivors of the Flood and their
descendents, rather than ante-
diluvian creatures.
• Large-scale, global post-Flood
catastrophism occurred.
• The geological work of the
Flood was primarily tectonic
and igneous, not sedimentary.
Discussion
As with any other model of natural his-
tory, we can and should evaluate it by an
evidential hierarchy congenial to Bibli-
cal Christianity. This would include: 1)
Biblical and theological evidence, 2)
presuppositional consistency, 3) logi-
cal consistency and coherence, and 4)
empirical (mostly geological) evidence.
This discussion will follow that hierarchy
in its proper order from the most signifi -
cant to the least weighty. Thus, though
the geological issues may be the most
intriguing, they carry the least evidential
import in the Christian worldview.
Biblical Issues
As with any model of earth history, the
primary evidence for or against the
recolonization proposal is the infallible
history contained in the Bible. Thus,
Figure 3. The stages of recolonization during and after the Flood are arranged
relative to the geologic column, with the gray boxes representing the approximate
extents of recolonization for marine creatures, plants, and air-breathing terrestrial
creatures from the ark. The recolonization model does not accept the absolute
timescale of the column. Modifi ed from Tyler (2006).
Volume 46, Summer 2009 31
accuracy in interpretation and herme-
neutical approach is the single greatest
hurdle for the recolonization model.
And the scriptural support elicited by
the model (Tyler, 2006) is weak in at
least four areas.
Interpretive Methodology
Tyler (2006) draws various conclusions
in regard to the Genesis Flood narrative
by appealing to New Testament refer-
ences that cite the Flood as a means of
judgment (Matt 24:37ff; Luke 17:26ff).
Tyler justifi es his approach by asserting
that Scripture is best interpreted by
other Scripture. Although this view is
common among evangelicals in general,
and young-earth creationists in particu-
lar, it is somewhat naïve and simplistic.
In fact, the whole approach is either
circular or intractable. If Scripture A and
Scripture B refer to the same or similar
thing, which one interprets which?
Does A interpret B, or does B interpret
A? Even if we assume the later Scripture
(B) interprets the earlier one (A), then
what interprets the later one? If it is
another later Scripture (C), then what
interprets this Scripture? We end up with
an intractable Wittgensteinian problem
of defi nition, where Scriptures are inter-
preted by other Scriptures, which are
interpreted by other Scriptures, which
are interpreted by yet other Scriptures,
ad nauseum
.
Evangelicals with a high view of
Scripture are obliged to read Biblical
passages from a grammatical-historical
perspective: Biblical words and phrases
must be interpreted in light of their gram-
matical, literary, and historical context.
Although New Testament references
and allusions may assist in determining
and clarifying the literary and historical
context, they do not override the intrinsic
grammatical relationships and the origi-
nal literary and historical context.
New Testament References
In the case of the Flood narrative, Tyler
errs in allowing secondary allusions to
contradict the clear testimony of the pri-
mary historical narrative in Genesis 6–8.
He cites Matthew 24:38–41 and Luke
17:26–35 as evidence that the Flood
involved an overwhelming, immediate
destruction. In Matthew 24:37–41, Jesus
proclaimed:
As it was in the days of Noah, so it
will be at the coming of the Son of
Man. For in the days before the fl ood,
people were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage,
up to the day Noah entered the ark;
and they knew nothing about what
would happen until the fl ood came
and took them all away. That is how
it will be at the coming of the Son of
Man. Two men will be in the fi eld;
one will be taken and the other left.
Two women will be grinding with a
hand mill; one will be taken and the
other left. (NIV)
According to Tyler, “Jesus refers to
the Flood beginning suddenly. He drew
this analogy between the judgments in
the days of Noah, on Sodom, and His
future return. Each judgment [Noahic
fl ood, destruction of Sodom, and Christ’s
second coming] is presented as sudden”
(Tyler, 2006, p. 74). He adds:
Did any survive outside of the Ark
after the fi rst day? The bursting forth
of all the springs is an indication that
the en tire Earth was awash with surg-
ing water on the very fi rst day. If any-
thing did survive, it could not have
been much longer than a day since
the inundation was so overwhelming.
The parallel Jesus drew with Sodom
and with His own return indicates
that the destruction of life was over
quickly (Tyler, 2006, p. 74).
Thus, Tyler concludes that these
New Testament references imply a
sudden, comprehensive, and rapid
destruction.
In Noah’s day, the waters did not
rise gradually. The mabbul came
unexpectedly and overwhelmingly.
Along with the destruction of Sodom,
Christ used these historical parallels
because they were illustrations of
how
unexpected
, how
rapid
, and how
comprehensive
will be the events in
the hour when He returns” (Tyler,
2006, p. 85).
However, a careful reading of the
cited texts shows us that Jesus’ purpose in
referring to these events was to highlight
their sudden and unexpected nature,
not their duration. This is confi rmed by
Matthew 24:42: “Therefore keep watch,
because you do not know on what day
your Lord will come” (NIV).
Regarding the Flood, Jesus did in-
deed indicate that it was both completely
unexpected and comprehensive in that
it killed every living being except those
in the ark. However, the text provides
no warrant in itself to conclude that the
total destruction took not much more
than a single day. The duration of the
destruction is simply not in focus here.
This is confi rmed by the use of Greek
aorist tense for “came”
(
)
)
and “took
away”
(
).
).
The aorist tense with the
indicative mood is routinely employed
to refer to a historical action as a whole
without saying anything about the kind
of action or its duration (Wallace, 1996,
p. 554).
Again, it is possible to gain insight
into the Flood account from other
passages, but they cannot legitimately
be used to twist the original narrative.
To assert that brief and passing New
Testament references provide a better
source of information than the Genesis
account itself demeans the integrity of
Scripture. This is especially true when
one considers that the original readers
of the Flood narrative did not have ac-
cess to either the New Testament or the
teachings of Jesus. Does Tyler believe
that these original readers were likely
to have misunderstood the narrative
because they did not have access to the
New Testament?
A proper evangelical hermeneutic
must take the Genesis Flood narrative as
the primary source of information in re-
gard to the Flood event. New Testament
32
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Research Society Quarterly
this … was a well-known event.” In other
words,
had become a special,
technical term that was uniquely used to
refer to the Noahic Flood. Moreover, all
instances that refer to the Flood’s com-
ing or describe its impact are juxtaposed
with the Hebrew word
(“waters”)
resulting in the translation “fl oodwa-
ters.” Furthermore, all the post-Flood
instances refer to the Flood as a whole,
not just to the fi rst forty days (e.g., Gen.
9:28; 10:1; 11:10; Ps. 29:10). Therefore,
the Old Testament usage of
suggests that it refers not to just the fi rst
forty days of fl ooding but to the presence
of the fl oodwaters throughout the entire
period the earth was fl ooded.
Textual Indicators of
an Extended Destruction
Genesis 7:12 states that the rain fell
upon
the earth
for forty days. Although
can refer to the earth as a whole, it more
commonly is used as a general reference
to “land” or “ground.” This is confi rmed
by the instance in Genesis 7:17: “For
forty days the flood kept coming on
the
earth
, and as the waters increased
they lifted the ark high above the
earth
”
(NIV). The second, parallel, occurrence
of “earth” in this verse is clearly a general
reference to the ground.
In addition, Genesis 7:17–21 in-
dicates that as the rain fell, the waters
continued to rise. These verses provide
markers of progress; the ark fl oated, the
mountains were covered, and the depth
was suffi cient for the draft of the ark to
never touch ground. In this passage,
which covers weeks of time, the water
“kept coming on the earth” (7:17, NIV)
until all the mountains were covered
“to a depth of more than twenty feet”
(7:20 NIV).
In Genesis 6:13b, God proclaims
that He will “destroy both [humanity]
and the earth” (NIV). Thus, the object
of God’s wrath is not just human (and
animal) life but the earth itself. Given
that it took at least 40 and as many as
150 days for the fl oodwaters to cover the
entire earth completely, it is not possible
that the entire surface of the earth was
destroyed on the fi rst day of fl ooding.
Note also that the account does not
indicate that every living thing on the
earth was destroyed until
after
the entire
after the entire after
earth was covered in water. In other
words, it was not until the end of the
period of rising waters, when the earth
became completely covered in water,
that all living creatures were finally
destroyed. This should not be surprising
given that a substantial number of crea-
tures would have been occupying high
ground at the time when the fl ooding
began. Furthermore, birds would have
been able to escape the floodwaters
more easily than land dwelling creatures
and could have fl own to high ground.
It also must be asked how the rain
could fall upon the “earth” if the crust
was destroyed beforehand? How could
there be mountains to be covered if the
crust was destroyed? At a minimum, the
water was rising for forty days before all
land, including the mountains, was com-
pletely covered, and the waters prevailed
for up to a total of 150 days before the ark
came to rest on the mountains of Ararat
(Gen. 8:4). In short, the text indicates the
waters from the heavens and the springs
of the deep steadily rose upon the earth
for at least a forty-day period. There is
no doubt that this inundation was cata-
strophic and—relatively speaking—ex-
tremely rapid. Nevertheless, the account
does not support a complete inundation
and crustal destruction resulting in the
immediate death of all living creatures
on the day the fl ooding began.
Axiomatic Issues
Uniformitarian Chronostratigraphy
It is clear that Tyler (in his 2006 article
and many others) perceives the unifor-
mitarian chronostratigraphic timescale
or column to be an indisputable empiri-
cal description of the rock record. This
starting point leads inevitably to confl ict
with the Biblical account of the Flood,
references must be interpreted in light of
their own specifi c literary and historical
context and may or may not offer some
insight into how the original readers
understood the Flood narrative.
The Meaning of
mabb
mabb
mabb
û
l
Tyler proposes a new interpretation of
the Hebrew word
. He suggests
that it refers only to the fi rst forty days
of the Flood, rather than the entire
episode.
In Genesis, the word “mabbul” is
used of the destruction. It applies
to the fi rst 40 days of the time when
Noah was on the Ark. The mabbul
is the “cataclysm.” It was overwhelm-
ing. After these 40 days, the springs of
the great deep closed, the fl oodgates
of heaven stopped, and the torrential
rain ceased, signifying a cessation of
destruction (Tyler, 2006, p. 75).
In other words, Tyler contends
that
refers only to the period of
refers only to the period of
destruction when the fl oodgates of the
heavens were opened and the waters
broke out from the springs of the deep.
This period lasted for forty days (Gen.
7:17).
However, there are absolutely no
etymological or philological grounds
to ascribe such a meaning to
.
It is not enough to simply assert such a
unique interpretation. Tyler must dem-
onstrate this meaning from its historical
usage in general and its particular usage
in the Flood narrative. The burden of
proof lies with him alone, and he has
not provided anything more than mere
assertions.
The best way to resolve a word’s
meaning is to examine it in context in
order to determine how it is being used.
The word
occurs 13 times in the
occurs 13 times in the
Old Testament—12 times in Genesis
and once in Psalm 29:10—and all refer
to the Flood described in Genesis 6–8.
Michael A. Grisanti (1997)
notes that
“the presence of the article on all but two
instances (Gen. 9:11, 15) in the Flood
account (Gen. 6–11) may indicate that
Volume 46, Summer 2009 33
because the column is
not
empirical—it
not empirical—it not
is a conceptual representation of the
rock record resting on various presup-
positions that are diametrically opposed
to Biblical history (Reed, 2008a; 2008b;
2008c; 2008e; 2008f; Reed and Froede,
2003).
These presuppositions appeared
during the Enlightenment, specifi cally
among the mid-to-late-eighteenth-cen-
tury continental intellectuals; they were
not original to James Hutton (Reed,
2008d) or Charles Lyell (Rudwick, 2005;
2008). They included: (1) a lengthy pre-
history—contrary to the Genesis phrase
“in the beginning”—(2) the absence of
God’s active participation (or even pres-
ence) on history’s stage, (3) the superior-
ity of rocks to the Bible as reliable history,
(4) uniformity of process through history,
and (5) the material development of
earth and life.
In other words, the uniformitarian
timescale—even in its unquantified
chronostratigraphy—springs from the
worldview of Enlightenment secularism,
or naturalism. Mortenson (2006) dis-
cussed the anti-Christian philosophy of
the men who formed the timescale, and
these commitments are confi rmed by
secular historians (Rudwick, 2005; 2008;
Stark, 2003). Lyell’s anti-Christian bias
was nothing new; it was the culmination
of nearly a century of Enlightenment
“geology” being used as a club against
Biblical history—Buffon having pub-
lished his
Histoire
naturelle
in 1749.
There is more to the timescale than
just anti-Biblical history. It rests on a
questionable methodological corner-
stone—the assumption that rocks can
be globally correlated by their time of
emplacement (Reed, 2008b). That as-
sumption, quite unsurprisingly, rests on
the philosophical axioms of extended
prehistory and uniformity of rate, both
contrary to the Bible. Long ages of
geological stasis commend a time-strati-
graphic approach (correlating by time
periods); Biblical catastrophism does
not. Early naturalists embraced the
time-stratigraphic method because it
was evident that direct physical correla-
tion was not possible on the ambitious
global scale they desired. That method
stands today; correlation is still done by
time
. “Cretaceous” is a time period; it
refers only to an empirical rock body by
the imputation of “Cretaceous” time
to the rocks—an assignment that is not
empirical.
Since there was no extended prehis-
tory (Gen. 1:1) and since uniformity
of rate cannot possibly apply to either
the Flood or the Creation events, the
derivative cornerstone of the time-strati-
graphic approach—global correlation
by time—cannot possibly be true. If
the assumptions that prop up even the
relative chronostratigraphy of the times-
cale are untrue, then it follows that the
chronostratigraphy is fl awed. Further-
more, a global catastrophic fl ood would
deposit rocks based on local conditions
of energy, sediment source, topography,
and chemistry. These conditions might
vary from one region to another, even
for rocks deposited at the same time.
Therefore, it is unlikely that Flood
deposits could be globally correlated
by the methods and assumptions of the
uniformitarian column.
Uniformitarian Speculation
Uncritically Accepted
Like a number of other diluvialists, Tyler
seems to uncritically accept uniformitar-
ian interpretations of many aspects of the
rock record. For instance, he says,
the abrupt appearance of so many
phyla in low-energy environments
(many Cambrian formations carry
the marks of non-catastrophic depo-
sition) makes little sense as an early
(or the earliest) stage of the Flood
(2006, p. 80).
Accepting rather than questioning
this type of interpretation (i.e., “low-en-
ergy environment”) leads to diffi culties.
If so, then obviously the “environment”
required much more time than the
one-year Flood. Rather than contort
ourselves around the erroneous assump-
tions of secular prehistory, it might be
more profi table to reexamine the pos-
sibility of deposition in a high-energy
environment or the historical reality
that a diversity of small “environments”
would have been possible, given wildly
varying local conditions even in a glob-
ally catastrophic fl ood. It is an error
to assume that the Flood was wildly
catastrophic everywhere on Earth at
every moment over its duration. This
parody is popular in anti-creationist lit-
erature (e.g., Young and Stearley, 2008)
but needs to be avoided by creationists.
Since uniformitarians are predisposed
by their worldview to see slow processes
of deposition over millions of years
whenever they look at the rocks, we
need to beware the pervasive power of
their bias. Numerous instances could
be cited of changes in interpretation
from typical uniformitarian deposition
to catastrophic deposition over recent
decades (Ager, 1993; Oard and Reed,
2009). It is not unreasonable to believe
that the continued advancement of di-
luvial geology will lead to more of these
reinterpretations by both diluvialists and
secular geologists.
As an example, shale and mudstone
make up about 80% of all sedimentary
rocks. Geologists have historically in-
terpreted shale and mudstone as the
products of low-energy environments,
arguing from the physics of particle set-
tling through a column of water that it
would take vast periods of time for the
fi ne particles to be deposited. They then
have used those “necessary” millions of
years to argue against the Flood. The
problem is complicated by the fact
that most fossils are found in shale or
mudstone. Thus, they say, the Flood
could not possibly have produced the
fossil record.
But recent work by uniformitarian
researchers has shown that mud can
be deposited in signifi cant quantities
in fast-fl owing water (Macquaker and
Bohacs, 2007; Schieber et al., 2007).
34
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Research Society Quarterly
This supports rapid deposition required
by the Flood (Walker, 2008), and by
a mechanism not recognized prior to
these publications. How many other
unknown mechanisms await discovery?
Present ignorance of aspects of Flood
processes is not a reason to default to
uniformitarian interpretations of geo-
logical phenomena.
Furthermore, the relative scale of
processes for the recolonization model is
much closer to the Flood timing (weeks
vs. centuries) than to the standard uni-
formitarian scenarios (millions of years).
Given the necessary extent of relatively
rapid deposition during posited post-
Flood catastrophes, the recolonization
model appears to demand an innovative
examination of standard models of geol-
ogy, just as other young-earth models do.
The secular history encapsulated in the
geological timescale cannot be made to
fi t with the recolonization model.
Finally, the problem is deeper than
a simple disagreement over isolated
geological phenomena. The real issue is
whether or not uniformitarian specula-
tion rests on philosophical assumptions
antithetical to Scripture. It seems obvi-
ous, both from a historical perspective
(Mortenson, 2006) and from a logical
perspective (Reed, 2001), that they
do. If worldviews are really at war, the
scope of the fi ght must be acknowledged
and integrated into historical models.
Accepting uniformitarian interpreta-
tion with the full knowledge that the
presuppositional foundations of that
position are false is a dangerous way to
approach truth. Areas of ignorance in
diluvial geology do not justify defaulting
to solutions derived from an erroneous
framework. Having an “answer” is not
worth sacrifi cing truth.
Logical Problems
Circularity of Historical Models
and Historical Evidence
Because of the epistemological dif-
ferences between science and history,
historical models face hurdles not com-
monly associated with scientifi c theories.
The reservoir of evidence is usually
much smaller, the models are attempt-
ing to explain unique events rather than
general principles, and in these models,
the necessity of speculation is much
higher (because history deals with the
unobservable and unrepeatable past).
Given those constraints, it is not surpris-
ing that many historical models become
somewhat circular—interpreting data
within the framework of the model and
then falling into the common trap of
thinking that the ability to conceive of
a
possible
interpretation within those
boundaries somehow means that the
interpretation must be true.
The recolonization model trips over
this obstacle. There is no clear collec-
tion of data presented that
demands
the
recolonization approach. Instead, the
framework is erected to resolve per-
ceived problems with the rock record,
and then the model goes in search of
supporting evidence. It purports to
fi nd that evidence in the Bible and in
the rock record, but none of that in-
formation is unique to the model. For
example, as shown above, Genesis 6–8
allows a variety of historical solutions
in terms of geologic detail and favors a
more traditional Flood model. At best,
the recolonization option is only one of
many potential scenarios.
Likewise, the physical evidence cited
in support of the model does not con-
strain us to the recolonization solution.
Data that are presented as “evidence” of
the model can easily be re-interpreted
within a variety of other models in a
consistent fashion. Tyler (2006) dis-
cusses various time-rock units such as the
“Hadean” and “Archean,” but nowhere
does he demonstrate the necessity of his
interpretation vis-à-vis those units. He
cites dinosaur eggs, tracks, and nests as
indicators of post-Flood deposition, but
viable Flood explanations exist (Oard,
2009).
Unfortunately, an extra layer of dif-
fi culty is added, because the “data” often
imported into the recolonization model
are not data at all but mixtures of data
and interpretation. Finally, the problem
is made more acute by the blurring of
boundaries between history and science.
We are accustomed to secular models
of earth history that are granted the
certainty of experimental science sim-
ply because those proposing them are
“scientists.” Confl ating history as science
is expected in the worldview of natural-
ism but should be avoided by Christians
(Reed, 2001). The conquest of history by
science is an Enlightenment error and
clearly related to an anti-Biblical bias.
It is thus an error that creationists must
strive to correct.
History cannot meet the same stan-
dards of certainty and explanatory power
as science because the epistemological
differences between the two disciplines
are signifi cant, especially in a Christian
worldview. Thus the recolonization
model should be viewed as a potential
historical interpretation—nothing more,
nothing less.
Refugia Are Special Pleading
An illustration of this circularity is
found in the proposed “refugia” of the
recolonization model. First, the proposal
itself is somewhat unexpected, given the
implied repaving of Earth’s crust during
the fi rst day of the Flood. Instead of the
expected total destruction of the surface,
we learn that
not quite
everything was
destroyed; bubbles of life survived in
isolated marine settings. What happened
to the crust beneath these settings? If it
was destroyed, then how did the “refugia”
survive; and if not, then does the model
predict areas of distinctive oceanic crust
that might identify these locations?
The model states that these areas
functioned as nature’s arks, preserving
marine life that would repopulate the
oceans during the Flood. While we do
not disagree that marine life survived the
onset of the Flood, we believe that these
pockets of life are inconsistent with the
Volume 46, Summer 2009 35
extent of destruction proposed by the
recolonization model.
The existence of these refuges is not
demanded by evidence; it is demanded
by the model. If the fossil record is pri-
marily a record of recolonization rather
than the destruction of the Flood, then
the creatures that recolonized must have
survived somewhere: ergo, “refugia.”
Their existence is reminiscent of the
cartoon of the lengthy chemical equa-
tion that contains the key term “then a
miracle happens.”
Thus we must pose several questions
about these biospheres. First, what posi-
tive data demand these oases? Second,
how were these zones preserved in the
face of the catastrophic and complete
crustal overturn demanded by the
recolonization model? How did a suffi -
cient variety of life in suffi cient numbers
fi nd their way into these deepwater en-
vironments, given the rapid and abrupt
onset of the Flood? How did they survive
without eating each other? How did they
know when and where to migrate? How
could they have traversed the distances
to resettle globally and produce the
abundant life found in the fossil record
in the time allowed? In the case of those
fossilized in the Flood, we are talking of
a matter of weeks. Finally, if refugia were
in deep water, how did shallow water
bottom dwellers survive?
Timeline of Recolonization
Does Not Fit the Bible
This leads to another issue—that of tim-
ing. Tyler’s model would be clarifi ed by a
time line that illustrates the sequence of
the Flood as compared to the geological
column as compared to the migration
of life to the refugia, their dispersion
across the fl ooded earth, and their sub-
sequent fecund reproduction into the
vast populations preserved in the fossil
record—all within less than 331 days for
the pre-Permian record and within a few
centuries for the post-Permian record.
This time line should incorporate the
latest knowledge of both their relative
(to explain the fossil order) and absolute
speed of travel for various fauna, as well
as their reproductive cycles. We suspect
that such an exercise would demonstrate
the inability of the refugia solution to
overcome the problems inherent in the
recolonization model, because time
constraints would not allow suffi cient
time of travel to and from refugia, nor
would they allow suffi cient time for re-
production, dispersal, and fossilization
either during or after the Flood. For
example, the “Cambrian Explosion”
marks the preservation of vast numbers
of creatures that would have had to
migrate from their isolated refugia into
shallow marine environments preserved
in many places across the planet. Once
there, they would have to reproduce in
suffi cient numbers within a matter of
days to fi ll the fossil record for that time
period—all in the midst of a tremendous
catastrophe. And, of course, these same
shallow marine environments would
be expected to be subject to violent
disruptions as rapidly rising Floodwater
transgressed pre-Flood continents.
Geological Issues
Given the Biblical and logical weak-
nesses of the recolonization model,
we now turn to the area of its greatest
strength—its coherence with geologi-
cal data. However, closer examination
reveals problems similar to those found
in other areas. Rather than strongly sup-
porting the model, the geological data
raise additional questions.
Antediluvian Origin
of Much of the Crust
If the crust was destroyed and replaced
during the earliest phase of the Flood,
then the “Hadean,” Archean, and Pro-
terozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks
must have been emplaced during the
fi rst forty days of the Flood. That seems
unlikely for several reasons. First, the
lithosphere protects the hydrosphere and
atmosphere from the mantle. The simul-
taneous global destruction of the crust
deep into the lithosphere would expose
the surface to thermal and chemical
hazards that would threaten the survival
of marine life and life aboard the ark.
Second, large regions of the con-
tinental crust are granitic masses that
appear by virtue of their extent, miner-
alogy, and position to be relicts of the
Creation week, rather than the Flood.
For example, the granitic crust in the
midcontinent region of North America
is cut by numerous late Precambrian
to early Paleozoic rifts, which are read-
ily seen as early Flood features. Reed
(2000) interpreted the North American
Midcontinent Rift System as marking
the beginning of the Flood; and that
feature crosscuts preexisting granitic
crust, as well as other lithological ter-
ranes. Since the sediments infi lling the
rift basins appear to be nonmarine and
covered by marine Paleozoic sediments,
it appears that the rifting would have
taken place between the onset of the
Flood and the marine transgression of
North America.
Models that propose the destruction
of the crust must address the complica-
tions that arise from the global-scale
volcanism that would surely follow.
Furthermore, there is no Biblical or
logical warrant for such a dramatic event.
If nothing else, Occam’s razor should
constrain such speculation. Why create
the necessity to explain the catastrophic
re-formation of all of Earth’s crust? The
Biblical texts can all be satisfi ed without
this extreme measure. It seems quite
enough to have to explain the sedimen-
tary record and the associated intrusive,
extrusive, and erosional events.
Rapid Erosion of Continents?
The recolonization model proposes the
removal of rock cover, sediment, and soil
from continental interiors within a very
short timeframe.
Following Robinson (1996), the
recolonization model advocates
subterranean water bursting from
below the continents, immediately
36
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Research Society Quarterly
scouring everything
from
the land
into
the sea (Tyler, 2006, p. 76).
The movement of water over land
would follow well-known hydraulic
principles. Topography would exert a
profound effect on water fl ow: increas-
ing or decreasing the hydraulic gradi-
ent would speed up or slow down fl ow,
barriers would halt or divert fl ow, and
the orientation of the landscape could
create confl icting current paths. Rising
base level also would affect the gradient,
and even friction of the water moving
over the land surface would change
fl ow rates. Uncertainties abound, but it
seems unlikely, from a hydraulic point
of view, that water could overfl ow the
full extent of the continents in one day.
Think of the time required for modern
flood peaks to travel downstream in
a river. Also consider that in North
America, fl oodwater would have to fl ow
a thousand miles or more. Water mov-
ing 1,000 miles in one day would have
to fl ow at an
average
current velocity of
approximately 42 mph or 19 m/s for the
entire distance. Water fl owing greater
distances would require proportionally
greater average fl ow velocities.
Also, if the earliest crust is that which
was emplaced during the Flood, then it
stands to reason that all of the pre-Flood
crust was destroyed. If so, how then could
the water have run across the crust-that-
was-no-longer-there? Water in contact
with the lower lithosphere would not
fl ow; it would fl ash into steam.
Heat Problem
Tyler (2006) notes that the fi rst phase
of the Flood was the destruction and
re-creation of Earth’s crust.
In summary, the Hadean/Archean
was a time of “meltdown” for the
Earth (Tyler, 2006, p. 77).
However, this extensive tectonic
and igneous episode would, like cata-
strophic plate tectonics, create a hyper-
catastrophic thermal event that probably
would have destroyed the ark. The heat
fl ow from the upper mantle (ranging
in temperature from 1,200° to 3,600°
C) would transfer vast quantities of
thermal energy into the hydrosphere
and atmosphere, perhaps enough to
destroy them. Thus, the feasibility of
the recolonization model depends on
the demonstration that the release of
thermal energy would not prove fatal to
life in the refugia and aboard the ark.
Returning to the Biblical texts, there
is no textual support requiring the equat-
ing of the “destruction” of the Flood to
crustal melting. In fact, in 2 Peter 3, a
contrast is drawn between the judgment
of the Flood and that of the Second
Coming; the fi rst is a destruction by
water, which is
contrasted
to the latter’s
contrasted to the latter’s contrasted
destruction by heat.
Time Constraints on Recolonization
As noted above, Tyler’s model requires
the rapid migration, reproduction, and
preservation of vast numbers of organ-
isms during and immediately after the
Flood. Even as a “thought experiment,”
it seems highly unlikely that “refugians”
would cover the earth and reproduce in
suffi cient numbers to populate the fossil
record in the time allowed by Biblical
history.
After the destruction of the mabbul,
the fi rst continental environments
to be recolonized were marine, as
the surface of what was to become
land was still covered with water.
Only later, as the land emerged
above the sea, could there be ter-
restrial recolonization (Tyler, 2006,
p. 77).
Repopulating large continental areas
with all manner of marine creatures
within a matter of weeks requires giant
refugia located immediately adjacent to
the continents with favorable currents
to carry the creatures to their ultimate
resting places. Yet this seems contrary to
his depiction of refugia as small, isolated,
deepwater survival zones.
The order of the fossil record seems
wrong, too. Why would the fossil record
not show a systematic order based on the
speed of the organisms combined with
their fecundity? And what creatures are
fecund enough to provide that many
fossils in a matter of days or weeks? Tri-
lobites litter the lower Paleozoic. How
fast could they move and reproduce?
They would have to move from refugia
to resting places all over the world in vast
numbers within days. Other examples
could be multiplied. We suggest that
advocates of recolonization assemble
these data on at least the major fossil
groups buried by the Flood and dem-
onstrate that their hypothesis is at least
theoretically possible.
Origin of “Post-Flood” Rocks
The recolonization model terminates
the Flood during the Carboniferous.
Thus, the volumetric majority of the
sedimentary rock record would then
have been deposited
after
the Flood (e.g.,
after the Flood (e.g., after
Froede, 2007a; 2007b; vs. Tyler, 2007).
This seems diffi cult to reconcile with
the Biblical description of the Flood as
a uniquely catastrophic global phenom-
enon. It also seems diffi cult to reconcile
with God’s promise in Genesis 9 to never
again repeat the Flood, given the global
presence of widespread marine strata
younger than the Carboniferous. What
specifi c non-Flood
,
but geographically
extensive, catastrophes would have been
required to deposit these sediments all
over the world?
This problem is exacerbated by the
Bible’s restrictive timescale, even after
the Flood. There is not much time
between the Flood and the time when
we would reasonably expect written
historical records, and such records
should then contain tales of monstrous
catastrophes. That time frame also must
accommodate the dispersal of terrestrial
life from the ark and their repopulation
in sufficient numbers to provide the
quantity of terrestrial fossils observed in
the rock record. Furthermore, geologists
are confi dent that the existing rock and
fossil records are only a fraction of the
total
deposited
record, and so the num-
deposited record, and so the num-deposited
Volume 46, Summer 2009 37
ber of fossilized creatures was probably
much greater than that observed today.
Once again, the premise of the timescale
presents an additional roadblock for the
recolonization model.
Rocks and fossils are not the only
problem with the time line. What about
landforms that overlie these supposedly
post-Flood sediments? Many require
large-scale erosion and orogeny, pro-
cesses more consistent with late-Flood
tectonism and receding floodwaters
than modern low-energy events (Oard,
2008). If the most “recent” features of
the geologic record were formed by the
Flood, then it stands to reason that all
underlying rocks were too.
How Did Post-Flood Civilization
Survive the Mesozoic?
A spin-off of this problem comes from
the establishment of human civiliza-
tion and the rock record of the Middle
East (Holt, 1996). Vast thicknesses of
the rock record in Mesopotamia are
Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks deposited
by marine processes in formations that
cover large regions. According to the
recolonization model, these sediments
would be the result of post-Flood catas-
trophes and thus concurrent with early
human civilization that spread rapidly
throughout the Middle East (Genesis
10). How could the descendents of Noah
have survived in a region undergoing
these kinds of large-scale catastrophic
events that were repeatedly occurring
and burying the fl ora and fauna living
with man? A simple comparison of the
Table of Nations to the stratigraphy of
the Middle East strongly suggests that
the recolonization model cannot easily
explain this discrepancy.
Furthermore, in the recolonization
model, the Zagros Mountains in western
Iran could not have risen until well after
the Flood and probably after Genesis 10.
This is true of many mountain chains,
yet the Zagros Mountains (uplifted in
the Pliocene) impinge upon the areas
fi rst settled by men after the Flood. In
that case, we would expect such an event
to be recorded in ancient literature.
Conclusion
Having examined the recolonization
model in the light of the Bible, the logic
of its assumptions and conclusions, and
the geologic data, it appears that the
model raises more questions than it
answers. We hope that Dr. Tyler and his
fellow recolonizers will continue their
efforts to understand the rock record in
light of the Biblical record, but we sug-
gest that they reexamine the recoloniza-
tion concept as a means to harmonize
special and general revelation.
If not, then it appears that they must
rethink the model, especially in light
of the worldview clash that sets the
axioms of Enlightenment naturalism
against Biblical Christianity in the arena
of natural history. Given that confl ict
and given the clear and unambiguous
linkage between the geologic timescale
(even in its relative chronostratigraphy)
and that secular worldview, the lines of
investigation need to run much deeper
than they do at present. We hope that
this work and that of other diluvialists
will begin to unlock the remaining se-
crets of the rock record and bring that
facet of human knowledge into confor-
mity with God’s kingdom.
References
CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar-
terly
CENTJ: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Jour-
nal
(now
Journal of Creation
)
Ager, D. 1993.
The New Catastrophism
.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Froede, C.R., Jr. 2007a. Norway’s newest
dinosaur and the Flood/post-Flood
boundary.
Creation Matters
12(1):9.
Froede, C.R., Jr. 2007b. A question of being
reasonable and the use of the uniformi-
tarian geologic column—a reply to Da-
vid Tyler.
Creation Matters
12(3):4–5.
Garner, P. 1996a. Where is the Flood/
post-Flood boundary? Implications of
dinosaur nests in the Mesozoic.
CENTJ
10(1):101–106.
Garner, P. 1996b. Continental fl ood basalts
indicate a pre-Mesozoic Flood/post-
Flood boundary.
CENTJ
10(1):114–
127
Garner, P. and J. Peet. 1999. Review of
From Flood to Pharaoh—A Chrono-
logical Framework
and
From Flood to
Pharaoh—Understanding the Old Stone
Age
by Steven J. Robinson.
Origins
(Journal of the Biblical Creation Society)
26:27–30.
Garton, M. 1996. The pattern of fossil
tracks in the geological record.
CENTJ
10(1):82–100.
Gradstein, F.M, J.G. Ogg, and A.G. Smith
(editors). 2004.
A Geologic Time Scale
2004
. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, UK.
Grisanti, M. 1997. ‘
lw%b@m
’. In Van Ge-
meren, W.A. (editor),
New International
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis
. Zondervan, Grand Rap-
ids, MI.
Holt, R.D. 1996. Evidence for a Late Caino-
zoic Flood/post-Flood boundary.
CENTJ
10(1):128–167.
Hunter, M.J. 1996. Is the pre-Flood/Flood
Boundary in the Earth’s mantle?
CENTJ
10(3):344–357.
Hunter, M.J. 2000. Scriptural constraints on
the variation of water level during the
Genesis Flood.
CENTJ
14(2):91–94.
Macquaker, J.J.S., and Bohacs, K.M. 2007.
On the accumulation of mud.
Science
318:1734–1735.
Mortenson, T. 2006. The historical de-
velopment of the old-earth geological
time-scale. In Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard
(editors),
The Geologic Column: Perspec-
tives within Diluvial Geology
, pp. 7–30.
Creation Research Society Books, Chino
Valley, AZ.
Oard, M.J. 2008.
Flood by Design: Receding
Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface
. Master
Books, Green Forest, AR.
Oard, M.J. 2009. Dinosaur tracks, eggs, and
bonebeds. In, Oard, M.J., and J.K. Reed
38
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Creation Research Society Quarterly
(editors),
Rock Solid Answers: Responses
to Popular Objections to Biblical Geology
.
Master Books, Green Forest, AR.
Oard, M.J., and Reed, J.K. (editors). 2009.
Rock Solid Answers: Reponses to Popular
Objections to Biblical Geology
. Master
Books, Green Forest, AR.
Reed, J.K. 2000.
The North American Mid-
continent Rift System: An Interpretation
within the Biblical Worldview.
Creation
Research Society Books, Chino Valley,
AZ.
Reed, J.K. 2001.
Natural History in the
Christian Worldview
. Creation Research
Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ.
Reed, J.K. 2008a. Toppling the timescale,
part I: evaluating the terrain.
CRSQ
44:174–178.
Reed, J.K. 2008b. Toppling the timescale,
part II: unearthing the cornerstone.
CRSQ
44:256–263.
Reed, J.K. 2008c. Toppling the timescale,
part III: madness in the methods.
CRSQ
45:6–17.
Reed, J.K. 2008d. St. Hutton’s Hagiography.
Journal of Creation
22(2):121–127.
Reed, J.K.2008e. Toppling the timescale,
part IV: assaying the golden (FeS
2
) spikes.
CRSQ
. 45:81–89
.
Reed, J.K. 2008f. Cuvier’s analogy and its
consequences: forensics vs. testimony as
historical evidence.
Journal of Creation
22(3):115–120.
Reed, J.K., and C.R. Froede, Jr. 2003. The
uniformitarian stratigraphic column—
shortcut or pitfall for creation geology.
CRSQ
40:21–29.
Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard (editors). 2006.
The Geologic Column: Perspectives with-
in Diluvial Geology
. Creation Research
Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ.
Robinson, S.J. 1996. Can Flood geol-
ogy explain the fossil record?
CENTJ
10(1):32–69.
Rudwick, M.J.S. 2005.
Bursting the Limits of
Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory
in the Age of Revolution.
University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008.
Worlds before Adam:
The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the
Age of Reform.
University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL.
Scheven, J. 1996. The Carboniferous fl oating
forest—an extinct pre-Flood ecosystem.
CENTJ
10(1):70–81
Schieber, J., J. Southard, and K. Thaisen.
2007. Accretion of mudstone beds from
migrating floccule ripples.
Science
318:1760–1763.
Stark, R. 2003.
For the Glory of God
. Princ-
eton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Tyler, D.J. 1996. A post-Flood solution to
the Chalk problem.
CENTJ
10(1):107–
113.
Tyler, D.J. 2006. Recolonisation and the
Mabbul. In Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard
(editors),
The Geologic Column: Perspec-
tives within Diluvial Geology
, pp. 73–86.
Creation Research Society Books, Chino
Valley, AZ.
Tyler, D.J. 2007. A time to discard creation-
ist “Shibboleths”—a response to Carl
Froede.
Creation Matters
12(3):3.
Walker, F. 2008. Mud experiments overturn
long-held geological beliefs.
Journal of
Creation
22(2):14–15.
Wallace, D.B. 1996.
Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics
, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
MI.
Whitcomb, J.C., and H.M. Morris. 1961.
The Genesis Flood
. Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, Phila-
delphia, PA.
Young, D.A., and R.F. Stearley. 2008.
The
Bible, Rocks, and Time
. InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, IL.
Appendix
Appendix
Other Literature Sources
for the Recolonization Model
(Our thanks to David Tyler for supplying
this resource)
Garner, P., S. Robinson, M. Garton, and
D. Tyler. 1996. Comments on polar
dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood.
CRSQ
32(4):232–234.
Garner, P. 1999. It’s a horse, of course.
Origins (Journal of the Biblical Creation
Society)
26, October, pp. 13–23.
Garton, M. 1990a. Rocks and Scripture:
where does the answer lie?
Origins
3(8):4–7.
Garton, M. 1990b. Rocks and Scripture:
investigating the earth’s history.
Origins
3(9):4–9.
Garton, M. 1991a. Rocks and Scripture: on
the right track?
Origins
4(10):3–8.
Garton, M. 1991b. Rocks and Scripture: from
the Flood to Babel.
Origins
4(11):8–13
Garton, M. 1993. Rocks and Scripture: the
millions of years time-scale and some
geological common sense.
Origins
6(15):17–23
Garton, M. 1997. A Spanish weekend.
Ori-
gins
22:11–24.
Garton, M. 1998. The real lifestyle of dino-
saurs.
Origins
24:14–22.
Northrup, B. 1986. A walk through time: a
study in harmonization. In Walsh, R.E.,
C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell (editors),
Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Creationism,
volume II,
pp. 147–156. Creation Science Fellow-
ship, Pittsburgh, PA.
Northrup, B. 1990. Identifying the Noahic
Flood in historical geology: part one. In
Walsh, R.E., and C.L. Brooks (editors),
Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Creationism
, volume I, pp.
173–179. Creation Science Fellowship,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Northrup, B. 1990. Identifying the Noahic
Flood in historical geology: part two. In
Walsh, R.E., and C.L. Brooks (editors),
Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Creationism,
volume I. pp.
181–188. Creation Science Fellowship,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Robinson, S.J. 1996. Was the Flood initiated
by catastrophic plate tectonics?
Origins
21:9–16.
Robinson, S.J. 1998. The Flood in Genesis:
what does the text tell geologists? In
Walsh, R.E. (editor),
Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Cre-
ationism,
pp. 465–474. Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
Robinson, S.J. 2000a. The then world with
water having been deluged perished.
Origins
29:15–24.
Robinson, S.J. 2000b. Snake evolution
Volume 46, Summer 2009 39
and the Garden of Eden.
Origins
30:10–13.
Scheven, J. 1984. The interpretation of fossils
and the principle of actualism. In Tyler,
D.J. (editor).
Understanding Fossils and
Earth History
.
Biblical Creation
Special
Issue 18:5–19.
Scheven, J. 1986.
Karbonstudien—neues
Licht auf das alter der Erde
. Neuhausen-
Stuttgart Haenssler-Verlag.
Scheven, J. 1988.
Mega-sukzessionen und Kli-
max im Tertiaer: Katastrophen zwischen
Sintfl ut und Eiszeit.
Neuhausen-Stutt-
gart: Haenssler-Verlag.
Scheven J. 1990a. The Flood/post-Flood
boundary in the fossil record. In Walsh,
R.E., and C.L. Brooks (editors),
Proceed-
ings of the Second International Confer-
ence on Creationism
, volume II, pp.
247–266. Creation Science Fellowship,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Scheven, J. 1990b. The geological record of
Biblical earth history.
Origins
8:8–13.
Scheven, J. 1992. Gleanings from Glossop-
teris. In
Proceedings of the Fifth European
Creationist Congress
, pp. 53–58
Scheven, J. 1993. Ammonites, mussels and
cockles. The changing face of the post-
Flood sea.
Origins
5(14):10–17.
Tyler, D.J. 1994. Tectonic controls on
sedimentation in rocks from the Jurassic
Series (Yorkshire, England). In Walsh,
R.E. (editor),
Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Creationism
,
pp. 535–545. Creation Science Fellow-
ship, Pittsburgh, PA.
Tyler, D.J. 2000. Patterns in the rock record:
fl ood geology and the geological column.
Origins
27:29–31.
Tyler, D. 2003a. Mull’s witness to the Flood
and its after-effects.
Origins
33:16–18.
Tyler, D. 2003b. Tracking dinosaurs in Brit-
ain.
Origins
36:6–9.
Tyler, D. and Garner, P. 2000. The unifor-
mitarian column and Flood geology: a
reply to Froede and Reed (1999,
CRSQ
36:51–60).
CRSQ
37:60–61.
Tyler, D.J., and H. Coffi n. 2006. Accept
the column, reject the chronology. In
Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard.
The Geologic
Column: Perspectives within Diluvial
Geology,
pp. 53–69
.
Creation Research
Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ.
Book
Book
Book
Review
Coupled with its provocative title, this
book is suffi cient to shake a reader from
head to foot. As the fi rst of fi ve proposed
volumes, this issue truly is an experi-
ence. My attention was riveted and my
emotions ranged from delight to disgust,
mostly the latter. We are served by
Bergman (and lesser authors including
Kevin H. Wirth, D. James Kennedy, and
John Eidsmoe) a smorgasbord of true
stories. Most of the victims unjustifi ably
suffered seriously, being denied educa-
tional advancement, status, positions,
compensation, etc. However, there is
near the end of the book a redeeming
“survivors” chapter presenting accounts
of those including Wernher Von Braun
who came through persecution with
relative success.
This significant compilation au-
thenticates the harassment of various
Darwin doubters, creationists, and in-
telligent-design advocates. In carefully
compiling these case studies, Bergman
says his “plea is that readers and sup-
porters will work to move the pendulum
toward more tolerance and accommoda-
tion of Darwin skeptics in line with the
principles of a free and just society” (p.
15). Bergman affi rms that during his
data compilation he “made every effort
to contact both the victims and their
critics” (p.12).
The book has convenient footnotes
containing authors, dates, and pages for
cited material. For complete references,
readers can to the 68-page bibliography.
Also, there is a helpful 22-page index. I
anticipate that the volume will have a
serious impact; it deserves wide distri-
bution.
Wayne Frair, Ph.D.
1131 Fellowship Road
Basking Ridge NJ 07920
Slaughter of the
Dissidents:
Slaughter of the
Dissidents:
Slaughter of the
The
Shocking Truth about
Killing the Careers of
Darwin Doubters
by Jerry Bergman
Leafcutter Press, Southworth,
WA, 2008, 493 pages, $24.00.
