Evolution, Scientific Creation, Uniformitarian Geology, and Flood Geology

Clifford A. Cuffey

DISCLAIMER: This article was first published in the December, 1999, issue of the NOGS LOG is solely the work of the author and is in no way meant to reflect a position by the author's employer.

Introduction

Why should we, as a group of petroleum geologists rather than educators, be concerned about the Kansas Board of Education's recent decision, with the aide of "creation scientists," to remove most of evolution from that state's science curriculum?

Most directly because evolution is a vitally important, unifying concept of modern biology and paleontology (Dobzhansky, 1983). Furthermore, evolution is a valid scientific theory (Root-Bernstein, 1984) supported by a vast amount of ver ifiable and repeatable data (Carroll, 1997; Cuffey, 1984; Hallam, 1977; Sloan, 1983). For example, the skeletons, especially skulls, of therapsid reptiles bear striking similarities with those of mammals and provide compelling evidence for their evolution ary relationship (Sloan, 1983). This is easily verified by a trip to a natural history museum with such fossils on display. Teaching biology without evolution is scientifically dishonest. It is equivalent to teaching geology without plate tectonics, chemi stry without the periodic table, physics without Newton's Laws, or astronomy without the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo.

More relevant to us, however, is that "creation science" is not only promoted as an alternative to evolution, but also as an alternative to modern uniformitarian geology-complete with a rejection of superposition, historical geology, the geologic time scale, sedimentology, and plate tectonics. This is indicated by statements in "creation science" books (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 137, 224, 228; Morris, 1985, p. 101, 102). The new Kansas science curriculum includes statements tha t Mount St. Helens and Mount Etna are examples that "suggest alternative explanations to scientific hypotheses or theories" (Belluck, 1999). "Creation scientists" have recently been using the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens as proof that geologic events can happen very rapidly, thus indicating that the earth is not ancient (Belluck, 1999). Having personally been erupted upon by Mount St. Helens on June 12, 1980, I strenuously object. Whereas the eruptions were spectacular, they certainly do not indicate a young age for the earth because such events are episodic, separated by 10's, 100's, or 1000's of years. Nor do they cast doubt on the basic principles of geology.

As a group of practicing scientists whose discipline is being challenged as entirely invalid, I think we all need to be informed about the alternative, evaluate our science, and make an assessment of the alternative. That is the purp ose of this paper. Many of the observations I will discuss we all have learned through our geologic education and subsequent experiences. I have expanded these with examples from my own experience. I do so to stimulate your thinking and awareness, and to encourage you to reflect upon your own examples of the principles I discuss. As you read this article, please note that the scientific arguments I present are independent of God, and therefore I am not testing the validity of God, religion, or morality. Those issues properly belong in theology and spiritual philosophy, not science.

Uniformitarian Geology & Volcanology

Throughout this article, I use "uniformitarianism" in its modern understanding, not as strict Lyellian uniformitarianism. This modern understanding, now termed "actualism," states that "the principles of nature have been uniform through time" (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 36). Thus, in modern depositional environments, we can observe depositional processes and their sedimentary results. Then, we can infer that the same results in the rock record were formed by the same processes. Keep in mind, however, that some processes apparently are not operating today (deposition of banded iron formation, for example), and that the rates and intensities of processes may be variable to some degree (violent volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa versus gr adual progradation of today's Mississippi River delta). In any case, the concept that "the present is the key to the past" is still valid in many cases.

Mount St. Helens is a classic example of a stratovolcano. Compositionally, it is primarily a dacitic cone, with some andesitic and basaltic rocks as well. During the 1960's and 1970's, several geologists studied Mount St. Helens exte nsively and published key papers describing its geology, eruptive history, and future eruptive potential (especially Crandell, Mullineaux, & Rubin, 1975; also Crandell & Mullineaux, 1973, 1978; Hyde, 1975; Mullineaux & Crandell, 1962). They de scribed a wide variety of eruptive products, including lava domes, lava flows, pyroclastic flows, ash flows, ash-falls, and lahars. Their origin was inferred by comparing the Mount St. Helens rocks with the eruptive products produced by observable process es during eruptions at other well studied volcanoes, especially Mt. Pelee (Antilles), Mt. Lamington (Papua New Guinea), Santa Maria (Guatemala), Vesuvius (Italy), Fuji (Japan), Hekla (Iceland), and others from Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, and the An tilles (Crandell, Mullineaux, & Rubin, 1975; Mullineaux & Crandell, 1962). The eruptive history of Mount St. Helens was deciphered from the sequence of rocks using Steno's principles of superposition and lateral continuity. It was temporally constrain ed by approximately 30 radiocarbon dates obtained from charcoal and other plant debris preserved in the pyroclastic flows and lahars. The eruptive history was also compared to that for Vesuvius, Fuji, and Hekla. All three have erupted frequently in histor ic times and so provide abundant information concerning the frequency and duration of eruptions. From these studies, the authors concluded that Mt. St. Helens "...will erupt again-perhaps within the next few decades" (Crandell, Mullineaux, & Rubin, 1975, p. 438). Crandell & Mullineaux (1978) stated that, "In the future, Mount St. Helens probably will erupt violently..." (p. C1, 2) and "...probably will produce lava flows, domes, tephra..., and pyroclastic flows, most of which will be accompanied by the emission of gases; some of these eruptions may cause mudflows to be formed" (p. C4, 5). Indeed, most of their predictions were accurate (Lipman & Mullineaux, 1981). Mount St. Helens is a great triumph of modern uniformitarian geology both as a historical tool for deciphering the earth's past and as a predictive tool for future geologic events.

"Creation scientists" assert that uniformitarianism is illegitimate (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 216, 228). Are we as geologists blindly making an assumption that has no logical foundation? Why do we think uniformitarianism works ? I think that it is an instinctive problem solving tool that relies heavily on inductive logic, whereby we infer conclusions based on empirical observations and experiential knowledge. For example, we can observe deer walking through mud (process) and ma king distinctive footprints (result). Elsewhere, we then find very similar types of footprints. We infer, by making the logical connection between process and result, that these footprints indicate a deer walked by recently. Likewise, it is an application of "Occam's Razor," whereby we choose the "simplest" and most realistic explanation by not postulating anything unnecessary. The scientific method, or hypothetico-deductive reasoning, is an extension of this basic problem-solving technique whereby we use deductive logic to test our conclusions.

Scientific Creation & Flood Geology

Gish (1985, p. 35) defined the "creation model" as follows: "By creation we mean the bringing into being of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation described in the first two chapters of Genesis . Here we find the creation by God of the plants and animals, each commanded to reproduce after its own kind using processes which were essentially instantaneous. We do not know how God created, what processes he used, for God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe." The earth is thought to be approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years old (Gish, 1995, p. 48). Consequently, "creation scientists" propose an alternative model to uniformitarian historical geology, in which a wor ld-wide "great flood" is prominent (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961; Morris, 1985, p. 129; Brown, 1996). Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 214-217) recognized four time divisions, fleshed out with details (Morris, 1985, p. 214, 215). More recently, Brown (1996, p.82-92) added the "hydroplate theory" as an alternative to plate tectonics. The initial creation event, lasting six 24-hour days (Whitcomb, 1986, p. 28, 32) and fixing the Law of Conservation of Energy, starts the "creation science model." The antediluvian period followed, at the end of which occurred the rebellion of Man and the resultant Curse, formalized as the Law of Increasing Entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics). According to the hydroplate theory of Brown (1996), at this time, the earth's crust consisted of three layers: 1) one large continental slab (similar to Pangea) of granite floating on 2) a subterranean chamber filled with water approximately 5/8 mile thick above 3) a basalt layer which rested on the mantle. Subsequently, the "great floo d," a world-destroying flood which lasted 371 days (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 3), consumed the earth and deposited most of the rock record. During the initial rupture phase, increasing pressure in the subterranean water layer cracked open the earth and the water fountained out. This was followed by the flood phase, during which the water covered the earth, eroded the edges of the continents, and then deposited much of the sediment. From descriptions elsewhere (Morris, 1985, p. 118, 119), it is clear that this must have occurred by sedimentation from waning flow. Also, fossils were hydrodynamically sorted according to size and shape (Morris, 1985, p. 118, 119). As the pressure in the subterranean water decreased, carbon dioxide gas bubbled out of sol ution and carbonate rocks were precipitated out of the water. Ultimately, the rupture widened such that the confining pressure decreased and the basalt layer buckled up forming the mid-ocean ridges. During the continental drift phase, the continental gran itic slabs (called hydroplates, still floating on water) slid downhill away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. As the sliding hydroplates collided with the Mid-Pacific Ridge and India, they experienced a massive compression event that buckled the rock layers in to mountain ranges. As the lubricating water depleted, friction increased resulting in heating, magma generation, and volcanism. Finally, as the plates settled onto the floor of the subterranean water chambers, the flood waters flowed into the modern deep ocean basins. Subsequently, the modern, post-deluge world has been under the domain of natural uniformity.

"Creation scientists" attribute most of the rock record, especially the fossiliferous Phanerozoic sediments, to the "great flood" (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 258, 265, 327; Morris, 1985, p. 117, 118, 123; Gish, 1995, p. 49; Brow n, 1996, p. 84-86). Their descriptions of the "great flood" leave no doubt that the magnitude, intensity, current velocities, and sediment transport capabilities of the "great flood" would certainly have included the coarsest known sediment. Empirically and experimentally, we can demonstrate that as current velocity decreases during waning flow, the largest sediment particles are deposited first, followed by progressively smaller particles until finally clay settles out of essentially quiet water. We can also demonstrate empirically and experimentally the types of sedimentary structures that form under various current velocities and water depths. Therefore, a worldwide, "great flood" should deposit some very distinctive sediments.

Channelled Scablands & Conglomerates

Consider the large area of southeastern Washington, between the Columbia and Snake Rivers, known as the channelled scablands (Newell, 1982, p. 39-41; Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 38, 39, 514, 515). The topography of the land surface in this region is braided similar to landscapes produced by flash floods, and the bedrock is blanketed by conglomeratic sediment formed into enormous ripples. It apparently formed by a large-scale flood, named the "Great Spokane Flood." At the close of the last ice age, an ice dam bottled up water in Glacial Lake Missoula (indicated by beach lines high on hills surrounding Missoula, Montana), melted, and sent the water rushing across Idaho and Washington toward the Pacific Ocean. But this was not part of a worldwide "great flood." If it were, the rest of the world's land surfaces would look similar, and they do not. In tropical regions, rapid weathering and erosion could have obliterated such evidence. But much of the world's land surfaces are dry with very slow rates of weathering and erosion; such features would be preserved just as they are in Washington. Instead, these regions have been dominated by subaerial processes such as alluvial fan and soil formation.

What about conglomerates? Morris (1985, p. 103, 104) states that nothing less than floods, in some cases of wide extent, could account for their deposition. Indeed, the large grain size found in conglomerates is not inconsistent with deposition by fast water current velocities as in a flood. Many fast-flowing braided rivers that drain mountain ranges currently deposit conglomeratic sediment (Animas River, Colorado; North Saskatchewan and Athabasca Rivers, Alberta; Rakaia River, New Z ealand). Flash floods on alluvial fans of the Great Basin also deposit gravel. But a "great flood" is not a unique interpretation for conglomerate. Such sediment can also be deposited by debris flows on alluvial fans, rock falls or avalanches at the base of very steep slopes, melting glaciers at moraines, karstification of limestone surfaces, or volcanic eruptions. Detailed examination of the internal composition and regional geometry of the conglomerates can test these multiple working hypotheses to find the most realistic interpretation. The fact that these characteristics of many conglomerates in the rock record are more consistent with deposition in braided streams (Cant, 1982) and alluvial fans (Nilsen, 1982) argues against a "great flood." Moreover, whereas some of these conglomerates are regionally widespread, they are not world-wide, contradicting a "great flood." Finally, because the "great flood" overall exhibited waning flow, the entire rock record should be one large fining-up succession, with more conglomerates low in the rock record and more shale high in the rock record. In fact, the rock record is not one giant fining-up succession. Conglomerates and shales are widely distributed throughout the rock record, and some conglomerates can be em pirically demonstrated to grade laterally into finer grained rocks, including shale (Queenston and Catskill Delta complexes, Appalachians; Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 134, 266).

Sandstone, Cross-Beds, Ripple Marks, And Footprints

Morris (1985, p. 102) correctly stated that (at least some) sandstones were formed from loose sands transported by moving water and then deposited along river beds or beaches. Certainly, flooding rivers transport and deposit large volumes of sediment, including sand. Kesel et al. (1974), documented sedimentation from overbank flooding by the Mississippi River between Natchez and Baton Rouge during 1973. The thickest and coarsest sediment was deposited on natural levees and point bars, where up to 3 meters of sandy sediment was deposited, including subaqueous dunes. The backswamp received a thin blanket of clay-rich sediment. These authors noted that during the previous 80 years, 23 floods of equal or greater magnitude had occurred. Similar floods, such as the 1993 Mississippi River flood or this year's Hurricane Floyd floods in North Carolina, deposited the same sorts of sediments.

This begs questions of intensity, magnitude, and frequency of events. Were these floods "catastrophes?" To the people who lost family members, homes, and crops, absolutely. But they were not part of a "great flood" catastrophe. Such floods are a normal process of river systems, part of a continuous spectrum in the intensity of water current velocity from stagnant to very fast, and in the magnitude of floods from very local (certain parts of New Orleans during Tropical Storm Francis, September, 1997) to widespread (the 1993 Mississippi River floods inundated parts of Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois). Likewise, such "catastrophes" occur periodically, once every few years, hence our concept of the 100-year flood (Dott, 1981, p. 703). Morri s (1985, p. 100) stated that uniformitarian geologists need to postulate at least local catastrophes to explain the rock record, implying that it is indicative of one "great flood" catastrophe. That is a semantic game, not a logical inference. Successions of fining-up sandstones with interbedded shales are common throughout the rock record (Cant, 1982; Walker & Cant, 1984, p. 71-79; Collinson, 1986, p. 34-40). Many petroleum reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico consist of such rocks, whose SP or gamma ray log signature we commonly describe as "bell-shaped" (Cant, 1984, p. 306). Particularly good examples of such can be seen in outcrops of the Catskill Formation (Devonian, Pennsylvania), Abo Formation (Permian, New Mexico), and Garber Sandstone (Permian, O klahoma). The individual sandstone beds commonly contain trough cross-beds, ripple cross-lamination, and asymmetrical ripple marks which indicate unidirectional current flow as in rivers.

Whereas these features can be deposited by river floods, closer examination of critical details reveals data inconsistent with a "great flood" interpretation. First, many such fining-up successions are commonly preserved on top of on e another as in the Catskill and Abo Formations, and some offshore oil fields. This implies multiple waning-flow events, and is inconsistent with a single "great flood" of the flood geology model. Second, whereas the formation of ripples occurs by unidire ctional current flow (in some cases during floods), they are commonly preserved by clay drapes. These indicate that current flow ceased allowing the fine clay to settle out of suspension (Dott, 1981, p. 702). This contradicts a "great flood" interpretatio n. Third, fining-up successions preserved in the rock record closely resemble fining-up successions deposited on point bars in modern meandering rivers (Collinson, 1986, p. 39). Fourth, laterally extensive exposures of such rocks, as in the Hartshorne For mation (Pennsylvanian, Arkansas), commonly exhibit gently dipping "lateral accretion surfaces," indicative of lateral as well as vertical sedimentation, as is true on modern point bars. Fifth, shale lenses that locally truncate the upper parts of such san dstones (Abo Formation) closely resemble river channels or oxbow lakes in cross-sectional shape. The shale fill indicates that flow ceased allowing the fine clay to settle out of suspension, contradictory to a "great flood." To illustrate these points whe n teaching high school geology in Oklahoma City, I took my students on a field trip, first to the Canadian River where we dug trenches in the sand bars and pointbars, and then to a roadcut in the Garber Sandstone. We observed the same types of sediments a nd sedimentary structures in both, and made the logical connection between processes and results. The combination of these observations led us to the logical conclusion that these rocks were deposited by meandering and sandy river systems, in which indivi dual sandstone beds were deposited by flood events separated by many years of normal background discharge. Morris (1985, p. 102) stated that, "It is to sedimentary rocks that uniformitarianism is assumed to be particularly applicable, since we can easily observe modern sedimentary processes at work and then presumably extrapolate them into the past to explain the sedimentary rocks. The problem is that this doesn't work!" If this statement were true, then why do the Catskill, Abo, and Garber look exactly l ike they were deposited by uniformitarian processes in meandering and sandy river systems? It simply does not make sense that they were deposited by a "great flood."

Fossil footprints of terrestrial vertebrate animals are locally found in sandstone (Lockley & Hunt, 1995), such as in the Dakota Sandstone near Denver, Colorado. Here the footprints are impressed in the top surface of a sandstone layer and preserved by a shale layer covering them (Lockley & Hunt, 1995, p. 192-201). The presence of such fossil footprints is contradictory to deposition in a flood. How could the footprints form and be preserved in a "great flood?" Most animals would be swept away in the currents and drowned. The running water would continue to transport the sand and very quickly remove all traces of the footprints. Wave action does this to your footprints at the beach. Furthermore, symmetrical ripples indicating oscillating currents such as waves or tidal currents are found in associated layers. I think it is more logical that the animals walked around on a sand flat for a while, and then the area was submerged by essentially quiet water from which the clay settled out (Weimer et al., 1982, p. 212-221).

Creationists also reject the conclusion that some cross-bedded sandstones were deposited in eolian environments (Morris, 1985, p. 102); I assume they mean the Coconino, Navajo, Entrada, Weber, and Lyons Sandstones exposed on the Colo rado Plateau, because these are what Brown (1996, p. 142) illustrated. At first glance, without any additional observations, it would not be unreasonable to consider a subaqueous, possibly even flood, origin for these sandstones. Cross-bedding and ripple marks are certainly formed by water currents, as already stated, and these sandstones are quite thick and widespread. But again, this is not a unique, unequivocal interpretation. Careful examination of modern dunes indicates that climbing translatent stra ta, with coarsening-up laminae and rare foreset laminae, form only by the migration and accretion of low amplitude wind ripples in eolian environments (Hunter, 1977; Kocurek & Dott, 1981). Such strata and ripples are ubiquitous in the Navajo, Entrada, and similar sandstones (Kocurek & Dott, 1981), contradicting a subaqueous origin. Modern eolian sand dunes exhibit internal cross-bedding that is remarkably similar to that in the Colorado Plateau sandstones (Ahlbrandt & Fryberger, 1982, p. 19; McKee & Ward, 1983, p. 147; Collinson, 1986b, p. 104). Furthermore, we can observe the process of leeside grainfall forming eolian sand dunes in places like the Great Sand Dunes, White Sands (Collinson, 1986b), Monahans Sand Hills, Nebraska Sand Hills (Ahl brandt & Fryberger, 1982), or on Padre Island (Brookfield, 1984). If you visit these sand dunes on a windy day, you can see the sand grains saltating up the stoss side of the dune (you can feel the grains pelting your feet) and falling down the leesid e as the grainfalls forming inclined foresets. Again, we can make the logical connection between process and result in modern environments and the rock record. A closer inspection of the Coconino and Navajo Sandstones reveals that both contain fossil foot prints made by terrestrial tetrapods (Lockley & Hunt, 1995, p. 40-57, 112-147). Just as with the Dakota Sandstone, how could these form and be preserved in a "great flood?" Moreover, the Weber Sandstone has fossilized raindrop impressions (Ahlbrandt & amp; Fryberger, 1982, p. 18) that look just like modern raindrop impressions from eolian environments (Brookfield, 1984, p. 94). These observations contradict deposition in a "great flood" and lead me to the logical conclusion that the surfaces of subaerial sand dunes were rained upon and walked upon.

"Creation scientists" postulate unobservable mechanisms to explain cross-bedding. Brown (1996, p. 143) stated: "Sand layers would have had the greatest water content, because sand grains are fairly rounded, leaving relatively large g aps for water between the particles. Therefore, the sand layers were the most fluid during the massive liquefaction that accompanied the compression event. Deceleration would have forced the sand forward, displacing the water backward. This compression o f horizontal sand layers would have tipped, buckled, and beveled individual layers and groups of layers, forming what is known as cross-bedded sandstone." There are obvious problems with this. First, it still requires water as the primary fluid involved, which is contradicted by observable facts. Second, how could deceleration displace the water backward while the sand moved forward? Third, why do many of the individual cross-beds thin and converge asymptotically toward the base of each set, as is seen in modern eolian settings? Fourth, how could these beds be tilted and bevelled without the underlying or overlying strata being similarly deformed during the "compression event?" In the Grand Canyon, all the Paleozoic rocks, including the Coconino Sandstone, are essentially flat lying. However, in more structurally complex areas, such sandstones are tilted. How can this hypothesis explain the fact that the internal angle between the foresets and the formation's top and bottom is the same as elsewhere, whic h is now inclined at some other angle? Fifth, what about other cross-bedded sandstones like the Garber of Oklahoma? If these were formed by the same process, then we need multiple compression events. Finally, how can this hypothesis account for sandstones that are not cross-bedded? This hypothesis is a classic violation of "Occam's Razor," whereby unnecessary and scientifically untestable mechanisms are postulated to explain features which, in this case, can be explained better by observable, natural proc esses. Furthermore, the new explanation does not adequately explain the formation of cross-bedding because it implies features which are contradicted by empirical observations, and because it generates inexplicable inconsistencies. It should be discarded in favor of a uniformitarian interpretation.

Limestone, Mudcracks, And Lithification

As geologists, limestones probably strike us as hardest to explain in the context of a "great flood." Yet "creation scientists" do, using a combination of false statements and flawed logic. Concerning the origin of limestone grains, Bro wn (1996, p. 188) stated that "...few are ground-up sea-shells or corals..." This statement is factually wrong. I'm certain that all of us can think of a wide variety of limestones from throughout the Phanerozoic that are primarily composed of skeletal gr ains. In fact, the New Orleans Cotton Exchange, and some other New Orleans buildings, are constructed primarily from the Salem Limestone (Mississippian), an endothyrid foram - bryozoan grainstone from southern Indiana. The Burlington Limestone (Mississipp ian) and its equivalents throughout central and western North America are a vast blanket of crinoidal grainstones and packstones (Ausich, 1997). Such regional encrinites are common from the Ordovician through the Jurassic (Ausich, 1997, p. 513). Carbonate sediments composed primarily of skeletal grains are being deposited today on platforms and ramps such as southern Florida (Sellwood, 1986, p. 307), the Bahamas (Bathurst, 1975, p. 104, 108-121), and the Persian Gulf (Hughes Clarke & Keij, 1973; Wagne r & van der Togt, 1973; Bathurst, 1975, p. 181-185). Such sediments accumulate in situ both in reef (James, 1983) and non-reef (Wilson & Jordan, 1983, p. 307-316) environments. Again, we can make the logical connection between process and result both in modern environments and the rock record. Bioclastic carbonates could not be deposited by a "great flood." Carbonate producing organisms would be stifled by muddy flood waters, just as they are today near the Mississippi River delta.

"Creation scientists" assert that the extent, purity, and uniformity of limestone layers suggest rapid precipitation from the flood waters (Morris, 1985, p. 104; Brown, 1996, p. 78, 188, 189). They correctly noted that carbonate mud does precipitate directly out of sea water under the right conditions. These events have been termed whitings, and have been observed in the Bahamas and the Persian Gulf (Bathurst, 1975, p. 137). However, these are sporadic, localized events, not at all part of a "great flood." Again, consideration of intensity, magnitude, and frequency of events trips them up. Furthermore, this is not a unique solution to the problem. Much carbonate mud is derived from the disintegration of calcareous green algae releasing fine needles of aragonite (Sellwood, 1986, p. 292; Bathurst, 1975, p. 137). And, as already noted, bioclasts are demonstrably the result of other processes. Why couldn't the limestones be pure because they were deposited far from a siliciclastic sediment source? This is observable today on the Bahama Bank (Sellwood, 1986, p. 305-307), off the Yucatan Peninsula (Sellwood, 1986, p. 304, 305), or on atolls in the middle of the Pacific Ocean like Eniwetok. Furthermore, many limestones are in fact impure, containing various percentages of clay and quartz sand as insoluble residues, in some cases grading laterally into shales or sandstones (Bromide Formation, Ordovician, Oklahoma; Salona and Coburn Limestones, Ordovician, Pennsylvania; Keyser and Helderberg Limestones, Siluro-Devonian, central Appalachians; Oriskany Sandstone and Glenerie Limestone, Devonian, central Appalachians). Some modern carbonate sediments are impure, such as those on the northwest side of the Persian Gulf where the Zagros Mountains of Iran supply siliciclastics to the gulf (Seibold et al., 1973). Finally, in the context of a "great flood" (Morris, 1985, p. 104), pure limestones would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to deposit. The flood waters must still have had clay suspended in it because we can observe shale overlying limestone in many places (Utica-Reedsville-Kope Shales on top of Trentonian Limestones, Ordovician, Great Lakes; Sylvan Shale on top of Viola Limestone, Ordovician, Oklahoma; Mandata Shale on top of Corriganville Limestone, Devonian, central Appalachians; Marcellus Shale on top of Onondaga Limestone, Devonian, New York). How could the carbonate producers live in the muddy water? How could the carbonate mud be deposited while the clay remained in suspension? Brown (1996, p. 85-86) implied that limestones were precipitated out toward the end of the flood. This is directly contradicted by the rock record. Limestone is found throughout the rock record from the Proterozoic to the present.

Today, ooids form in very specific conditions: very shallow, warm, turbulent water (Bathurst, 1975, p. 134, 135, 295-319). We can observe them forming on the Bahama Bank (Sellwood, 1986) and in the Persian Gulf (Schreiber, 1986), whe re they are commonly piled up into sand banks (Halley , 1983). (Note that ooids form in the Great Salt Lake, but the geometry of the sand bodies, associated sediments, and fossils will definitively separate these from marine ooids.) Ooids, just like other carbonate grains, do not form during floods. Oolitic carbonates include the Mines Dolomite (Upper Cambrian, Pennsylvania), West Spring Creek Limestone (Lower Ordovician, Oklahoma), Ste. Genevieve and Paoli Limestones (Middle Mississippian, I llinois Basin), "Chester" Limestone (Upper Mississippian, subsurface, northwestern Oklahoma), and the Miami Limestone (Pleistocene, southern Florida). Some oolitic limestones (Smackover Limestone) are oil reservoirs (Sellwood, 1986, p. 325-327; Halley et al., 1983, p. 496-499). Some of these, just like modern oolitic sediments, contain ripples and cross-beds, clearly indicating deposition by turbulent, wave- and tide-influenced water. Again, we can make the logical connection between process and re sult both in a modern depositional environment and the rock record. If uniformitarianism does not explain sedimentary rocks (Morris, 1985, p. 102), then why do these oolitic rocks look exactly like modern oolitic sediments? Ooids are so unique, and their formation is limited to such specific conditions, they simply cannot be interpreted any other way.

Mudcracks, and associated sediments and sedimentary structures, are well documented from carbonate tidal flats in the Bahamas (Shinn, 1983), Persian Gulf (Bathurst, 1975; Shinn, 1983), and Shark Bay (Schreiber, 1986, p. 201, 202). On these tidal flats, sediment is transported from the subtidal environment by tides or storms onto the tidal flats, where it is deposited as thin laminae. The surfaces of the tidal flats are commonly encrusted by algal mats which help to trap the sediment. Due to the alternate wetting and drying, mudcracks form in abundance by subaerial desiccation. As the sediment dries, it shrinks, cracks, and hardens into tabular chips. During storms, these chips are eroded and redeposited as intraclasts. The associatio n of thin laminations, mudcracks, and intraclasts, is unique to tidal flats (James, 1984, p. 216). Such thinly laminated, mudcracked carbonates are present throughout the Proterozoic and Phanerozoic, and include the Axemann Limestone (Lower Ordovician, Pe nnsylvania), West Spring Creek Limestone, Tonoloway Limestone (Upper Silurian, Pennsylvania), and the upper Keyser Limestone (Upper Silurian, Pennsylvania). Of course, mudcracks are found in siliciclastic rocks as well, in a wider variety of depositional environments, but the processes are essentially the same. Whereas the formation of mudcracks initially involves wet sediment, it requires subaerial exposure for desiccation and cracking (note that syneresis cracks form under hypersaline water, but are kno wn from clay mud, not carbonate mud, and can be distinguished by observable criteria; Fouch & Dean, 1982, p. 102, 103; Shinn, 1983, p. 175). Not only can we make the logical connection between process and result in modern environments and the rock record, but also the process that must have happened is directly contradictory to a "great flood." One could argue that the mudcracks indicate subaerial exposure and desiccation at the end of the flood phase. But mudcracks are known throughout the rock record all the way from the Archean (Stanley, 1986, p. 261) to the present. Subaerial desiccation has been happening since the time the oldest sediments were deposited.

In the West Spring Creek Limestone, we find thinly laminated and mudcracked lime mudstone interbedded with skeletal wackestone, rippled oolitic grainstone, and intraclastic packstone. The logical conclusion is that these rocks were d eposited by a repetitive succession of shallow subtidal, intertidal, and supratidal environments indicating repeated, localized transgressions and regressions on a carbonate platform. All of these sediment types are forming adjacent to one another on the Bahama Bank and Persian Gulf today, and in places can be observed to be in vertical succession (Shinn, 1983). Such successions are abundant in the rock record and have been termed "shoaling-upward sequences" (James, 1984). This type of detailed observation of the succession of different types of sediments, deposited in a variety of different environments, directly contradicts a flood.

"Creation scientists" assert that the process of lithification must have happened by some rapid process not occurring today (Morris, 1985, p. 99). They claim that if a cementing agent were available, it could be accomplished in a few hours like a sidewalk made of Portland cement (Morris, 1985, p. 102). Petrologically, we can demonstrate that sandstone and other rocks are not lithified by Portland cement. Instead, they are lithified by calcite, quartz, hematite, limonite, and other minerals. By 1996, Brown (p. 78) seemed to have acknowledged the fallacy, although still claimed the cements must have formed rapidly.

In fact, modern sediments (primarily carbonates) are presently being lithified. Bathurst (1975, p. 363-375) stated that under shallow-marine waters, high Mg-calcite and aragonite cement precipitates within and on grains. In places wh ere the grains remain stationary and in contact with each other (both at the sea floor and within the sediment), the cementation produces a rigid framework. Such submarine hardgrounds are quite extensive in the lime sands of the Persian Gulf (Shinn, 1969; Bathurst, 1975, p. 371-374; Wilson & Jordan, 1983, p. 312). Lithification occurs in other carbonate environments, such as beaches (Inden & Moore, 1983, p. 221-224), reefs (James, 1983), and eolian dunes (McKee & Ward, 1983, p. 162-165). Human made artifacts, such as pottery (Shinn, 1969, p. 112, 113), beer bottles (Bathurst, 1975, p. 369), and World War Two ammunition shells (Emery et al., 1954, p. 44), encased within demonstrates the recent origin of these cements. In terrigenous sedi ments, calcium carbonate cementation has been documented subaqueously in modern deltas (Garrison, 1969) and subaerially on alluvial fans (Nilsen, 1982, p. 80). Lithification is an observable process in a wide variety of depositional settings. It primarily involves the precipitation of carbonate cements from water percolating through sediment. Given the large volume of ground water that flows through rocks (it seeps out of rocks in roadcuts, springs, and caves), and its "hardness" in areas with abundant li mestone bedrock or arid climates, it leads me to the logical conclusion that lithification of rock happens by these processes, not by a "great flood.

"Fossilization"

Creation scientists" make a wide variety of factually wrong and logically flawed statements and interpretations about fossilization. First, Morris (1985, p. 97-99) asserted that fossils are not forming today by uniformitarian processes. This is demonstrably false. In fact, shell-rich sediments, both carbonates and siliciclastics, are being deposited today in a wide range of environments. This is observable both in non-reef carbonates of southern Florida (Enos, 1983, p. 275, 283; James, 1983, p. 368-370) and the Persian Gulf (Wagner & van der Togt, 1973; Bathurst, 1975, p. 185), and in reef environments both as loose sediment and rigid framework (James, 1983). This is also observable on siliciclastic tidal flats (Weimer et al. , 1982, p. 196, 197, 202, 203) and continental shelves (Bouma et al., 1982, p. 305, 306, 308, 315). Moreover, modern submarine carbonate hardgrounds in the Persian Gulf (Shinn, 1969, p. 116, 118, 120, 121) and siliciclastic hardgrounds in deltaic e nvironments (Garrison, 1969, p. 34) contain shells, conclusively demonstrating that shell-bearing sediments do in fact grade into shell-bearing rock, contrary to statements by Morris (1985, p. 99). Again, we can make the logical connection between process and result both in modern environments and the rock record. Furthermore, these observations contradict fossilization by a "great flood."

Morris (1985, p. 99) challenges the uniformitarian to find a phenomenon that can account for the great dinosaur graveyards of the world. Pictures of cow carcasses partially buried by sediment deposited by the Hurricane Floyd floods i n North Carolina earlier this fall were broadcast on the national news. A Discovery Channel show about dinosaurs showed that, as wildebeast herds cross flooding rivers in Africa, some individuals drown, float downstream, and are buried in sediment. These strike me as particularly convincing analogues for the ceratopsian bone beds of Dinosaur Provincial Park (Upper Cretaceous, Alberta) and the famous bone-rich sandstone of the Morrison Formation at Dinosaur National Monument (Upper Jurassic, Utah). Associa ted fossils of fresh water molluscs and sedimentary structures in the Morrison Formation support the interpretation. Again, we can make the logical connection between process and result. Furthermore, consider the questions of intensity, magnitude, and fre quency of the events involved. These are normal river floods that occur periodically. They are not indicative of a "great flood."

Some bone beds are not found in water-laid sediments. Most notable is an assemblage of fossil mammals from the Upper Miocene at Ashfall Fossil Bed State Park Nebraska, including over 100 complete skeletons of rhinoceroses (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 450). They are buried in a thick bentonite. These animals were suffocated and buried by a giant volcanic ash fall, just like the humans at Pompeii. This is contradictory to a "great flood."

"Creation scientists" assert that fossilization necessitates rapid burial of organisms to prevent their decay and disintegration, thus implying a recent, catastrophic origin by the "great flood" (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 128, 129, 239; Morris, 1985, p. 97, 100, 111, 112; Brown, 1996, p. 81). Fossils with preserved soft tissues are exceedingly rare and only occur locally; the Burgess Shale is the most famous example (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 216-218). Such preservation doe s indicate that decay was minimal to prevent tissue decomposition. But their fossilization is accomplished by burial in organic-rich, anaerobic sediment deposited under stagnant water. This is contradictory to a "great flood." Ligaments hold the ossicles of living crinoids together. These soft tissues decay very rapidly after death, and the ossicles are disarticulated by scavenging, bioturbation, and wave action (Baumiller & Ausich, 1992). Rapid burial of live crinoids effectively entombs them in such a way that their skeletons do not disarticulate upon decay of the soft tissues (Ausich, 1997, p. 510). Vertebrate animal carcasses likewise can be buried before decay thus preventing disarticulation of the bones. However, the intensity, magnitude, and fr equency of such rapid burial events is not consistent with a "great flood" for at least three reasons. First, normal river floods, as already stated, can bury the vertebrate carcasses. Storm waves could suspend and redeposit a large volume of sediment, co mpletely burying live crinoids. We can make the logical connection between process and result in modern environments and the rock record. Second, complete fossils of such animals are quite rare and are only found locally at exceptional localities such as Dinosaur National Monument and Crawfordsville, Indiana (Mississippian crinoids), contradicting a global "great flood." Finally, most crinoid and vertebrate fossil remains are fragmentary, implying that they were not buried rapidly, but rather remained exp osed to disintegrative processes, which contradicts the "great flood" model.

Most commonly among animals, only mineralized shells or skeletons are fossilized, because they are much more resistant to processes of decay than are the soft tissues, and can remain exposed for much longer periods of time. Upon thei r death, the soft tissues of clams decay rapidly, but their shells remain on beaches much longer. Some fossil brachiopods are encrusted by epibionts, such as bryozoans and corals, in such a way indicating that they remained exposed on the sea floor post-m ortem for some time prior to burial (Cuffey et al., 1995). Hardgrounds are common throughout the rock record, especially in Phanerozoic carbonates. Many are encrusted by epifaunal invertebrates (sponges, bryozoans, oysters, and serpulid worms) and bored by infaunal invertebrates (pelecypods) (Bathurst, 1975, p. 392-413; Sellwood, 1986, p. 316-318). These fossils indicate that sedimentation ceased and the sea floor lay exposed for a period of time long enough to permit the development of ecologic co mmunities. How could this happen if sedimentation was continuous, as the flood geology model contends (Morris, 1985, p. 111, 112, 123)? Numerous productid brachiopods are preserved in the Permian carbonates of West Texas. In some cases, their long, thin, delicate, hair-like spines are preserved in exquisite detail (Cooper & Grant, 1975). Their preservation contradicts the "great flood" because the spines would have been broken off in the turbulent waters postulated to hydrodynamically sort fossils (Mo rris, 1985, p. 118, 119). Within the Speiser Shale (Permian, Kansas), clusters of the brachiopod Derbyia are preserved in life position. This is indicated by growth irregularities produced as the individuals grew crowded by their neighbors (Cuffey & L utz, 1994). How could such clusters be preserved in shale as a result of the "great flood?"

Conclusion

Two multiple working hypotheses exist to explain the rock record: flood geology and uniformitarian historical geology. The evidence I have presented, along with your own vast geologic knowledge and experience, allows us to test these hy potheses by applying scientific methodology and logic. Remember, science starts with a series of observations. In our case, we have found a variety of rock types, many of which contain features implying transportation and deposition of sediment in water. Through inductive logic, these and other observations lead to the two conclusions. Now, by applying deductive logic to each conclusion, we can make predictions about the observable features of the rock record.

In the case of uniformitarian historical geology, we predict that the rock record should be composed of sediments and sedimentary structures that look similar to those currently being deposited by normal processes in modern environme nts. Indeed, it is. Therefore, we can say that uniformitarian historical geology is not contradicted.

In the case of flood geology, we predict that the rock record should be composed of very coarse sediments and large scale rippling, with a world wide distribution, and that overall, sediment grain size should be fining-up due to the waning flow nature of the "great flood." The examples discussed herein, as well as the rest of the rock record, constitutes a massive volume of data that contradicts the predictions of flood geology. In some cases, they are directly contradictory, like mu dcracks, raindrop imprints, wind ripples, footprints, oolitic and skeletal limestones, and volcanic ash falls. In other cases, the magnitude or intensity contradicts the predictions of flood geology.

Deductive logic is asymmetrical. Whereas we can say that uniformitarian geology is supported by empirical observations and is not contradicted, we cannot prove it with 100% certainty without a time machine. However, so much is known about the rock record, from 200+ years of investigation, that uniformitarian historical geology is an inescapable conclusion. It is as well documented as the Copernican solar system and "spherical" earth was before space flight. In contrast, the massive v olume of data contradictory to flood geology conclusively falsifies that hypothesis with 100% certainty. It simply didn't happen that way. Please take special care to note that this falsifies one hypothesis about the processes that produced the rock recor d. It in no way negates God, religion, or morality.

Geologic arguments typically fail to convince "creation scientists." The basic problem is that "creation scientists" start with the answer and selectively use facts, false statements, and flawed logic to prove the flood model. Furthermore, "creation science" is founded on several key assumptions that are neither testable nor falsifiable:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis is both factual and infallible (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 1; Morris, 1985, p. 203, 251; Whitcomb, 1986, p. 92, 93, 40, 24, 28, 32; Gish, 1995, p. 19);
2. The creation event, while recent, produced a superficial appearance of age (Morris, 1985, p. 209; Whitcomb, 1986, p. 40, 44); and
3. The processes involved are believed to be supernatural and no longer operate (Gish, 1985, p. 35; Whitcomb, 1986, p. 19, 20).

"Creation science" thus is not a valid scientific theory or hypothesis. It is not science. Gish (1995, p. 13) freely admits this. Therefore, "creation scientists" are put in the unenviable position of stating that, "...there is ample warrant, both spiritually and scientifically, for seeking to build a true science of earth history on the framework revealed in the Bible, rather than on uniformitarian and evolutionary assumptions. This should be done, not with the attitude of trying to make the Bible accounts fit into the data and theories of science but rather of letting the Bible speak for itself and then trying to understand the geological data in the light of its teachings" (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 214).

Thus, "creation scientists" have invented untenable mechanisms to explain how the "great flood" could produce a rock record that looks exactly like it was formed by normal uniformitarian processes. These mechanisms include hydrodynam ic sorting to explain faunal succession, compression and liquefaction to explain cross-bedding, floating mats of vegetation to explain coal, and the hydroplate theory to explain mountains, volcanoes, and continental drift. All of these are contradicted by a massive volume of data, and they are gross violations of "Occam's Razor." "Creation science" is analogous to the Ptolemaic solar system with epicycles on the planets' orbits to explain their retrograde and other observed motions. Or, analogous to how t he Flat Earth Society continues to explain why the earth is flat despite all the evidence for a "spherical" earth (they believe that the space program, with pictures of a round earth, has been a hoax).

"Creation scientists" are a threat to freedom of scholarship because they insist upon the removal of valid scientific ideas (such as evolution) from education, and they do not allow their basic hypotheses to be investigated and prove n false. What can we as individuals do? First, be informed about the scientific issues at hand; I have tried to accomplish that in this article. This is not a problem that will go away, as is indicated by the Kansas Board of Education's decision. Second, if you choose to challenge educational efforts by "creation scientists," be very certain of your position, their position, and why they are wrong. Some of their statements are not incorrect. Realize that some of their arguments will seem plausible to the non-geologist. Extensive literature searching and thinking can provide the data necessary to challenge them. Third, be aware that there are other national organizations, such as the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, California), that combat "creation scientists" in the educational, political, and legal arenas. If these issues come up at a school where your children are, inform these other organizations.

Acknowledgements

I thank Rick Abegg, Becky Morlier, Betsy Strachan, Al Robb, and Ed Picou for reviewing and providing constructive criticism to improve this manuscript.

References Cited

Ahlbrandt & Fryberger, 1982, AAPG Mem. 31, p. 11-47.

Ausich, 1997, in Brett & Baird, Paleontologic events: stratigraphic, ecological, and evolutionary implications, p. 509-519.

Bathurst, 1975, Carbonate sediments and their diagenesis (2nd ed.).

Baumiller & Ausich, 1992, Paleobiology, 18, 288-298.

Belluck, 1999, The New York Times, Aug. 12.

Bouma et al., 1982, AAPG Mem. 31, p. 281-327.

Brookfield, 1984, in Walker, Facies models (2nd ed.), p. 91-103.

Brown, 1996, In the beginning: compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood (spec. ed.).

Cant, 1982, AAPG Mem. 31, p. 115-137.

Cant, 1984, in Walker, Facies models (2nd ed.), p. 297-310.

Carroll, 1997, Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution.

Collinson, 1986a, in Reading, Sedimentary environments and facies, p. 20-62.

Collinson, 1986b, in Reading, Sedimentary environments and facies, p. 95-112.

Cooper & Grant, 1975, Smiths. Contr. Paleobiol., 19.

Crandell & Mullineaux, 1973, USGS Bull. 1383A.

Crandell & Mullineaux, 1978, USGS. Bull. 1383C.

Crandell, Mullineaux, & Rubin, 1975, Science, 187, p. 438-441.

Cuffey, 1984, in Montagu, Science and creationism, p. 255-281.

Cuffey & Lutz, 1994, GSA Abstr., 26, 5, p. 11.

Cuffey et al., 1995, Lethaia, 28, p. 139-153.

Dobzhansky, 1983, in Zetterberg, Evolution versus creationism: the public education controversy, p. 18-28.

Dott, 1981, Jour. Sed. Pet., 51, p. 701-704.

Dott & Prothero, 1994, Evolution of the earth (5th ed.).

Emery et al., 1954, USGS Prof. Pap. 260A.

Enos, 1983, AAPG Mem. 33, 267-295.

Fouch & Dean, 1982, AAPG Mem. 31, p. 87-114.

Garrison et al., 1969, Sedimentology, 12, p. 27-46.

Gish, 1985, Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record.

Gish, 1995, Evolution: the fossils still say no!

Hallam, 1977, Patterns of evolution as illustrated by the fossil record.

Halley et al., 1983, AAPG Mem. 33, p. 463-506.

Hughes Clarke & Keij, 1973, in Purser, The Persian Gulf, p. 33-56.

Hunter, 1977, Sedimentology, 24, 361-387.

Hyde, 1975, USGS Bull. 1383B.

Inden & Moore, 1983, AAPG Mem. 33, p. 211-265.

James, 1983, AAPG Mem. 33, p. 345-462.

James, 1984, in Walker, Facies models (2nd ed.), p. 213-228.

Kesel et al., 1974, Geology, 2, p. 461-464.

Kocurek & Dott, 1981, Jour. Sed. Pet., 51, p. 579-595.

Lipman & Mullineaux, 1981, USGS Prof. Pap. 1250.

Lockley & Hunt, 1995, Dinosaur tracks and other fossil footprints of the western United States.

McKee & Ward, 1983, AAPG Mem. 33, p. 131-170.

Morris, 1985, Scientific creationism.

Mullineaux & Crandell, 1962, GSA Bull., 73, p. 855-870.

Newell, 1982, Creation and evolution: myth or reality?

Nilsen, 1982, AAPG Mem. 31, p. 49-86.

Root-Bernstein, 1984, in Montagu, Science and creationism, p. 64-94.

Schreiber, 1986, in Reading, Sedimentary environments and facies, p. 189-228.

Seibold et al., 1973, in Purser, The Persian Gulf, p. 57-80.

Sellwood, 1986, in Reading, Sedimentary environments and facies, p. 283-342.

Shinn, 1969, Sedimentology, 12, p. 109-144.

Shinn, 1983, AAPG Mem. 33, p. 171-210.

Sloan, 1983, in Zetterberg, Evolution versus creationism: the public education controversy, p. 263-277.

Stanley, 1986, Earth and life through time.

Wagner & van der Togt, 1973, in Purser, The Persian Gulf, p. 123-155.

Walker & Cant, 1984, in Walker, Facies models (2nd ed.), p. 71-89.

Weimer et al., 1982, AAPG Mem. 31, p. 191-245.

Whitcomb, 1986, The Early Earth (rev. ed.).

Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, The Genesis Flood; the biblical record and its scientific implications.

Wilson & Jordan, 1983, AAPG Mem. 33, p. 297-343.

Questions or Comments about GCSSEPM?

Send us e-mail and we will get back to you as soon as we can.