Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:43:48.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Biblical Flood as a Geological Agent: A Review of Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Davis A. Young
Davis A. Young*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Get access

Abstract

Mainstream scientists, including Woodward, Buckland, Prestwich, Suess, and Ryan and Pitman, have proposed a variety of theories to explain the biblical deluge. The extent of the flood in these theories has decreased as empirical knowledge of global geology has increased. In contrast, contemporary flood geology attempts to explain most of the geologic record in terms of a single, year-long, global catastrophe. Flood geology exists in the context of an alternate scientific universe with its own institutions, organizations, journals, and meetings. The views of Leonard Brand, Steven Austin, and Walt Brown, representative of flood geology, are discussed.

Type
Creationism and Flood Geology
Information
The Paleontological Society Papers , Volume 5: The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education , October 1999 , pp. 119 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Arbuthnot, J. 1697. An Examination of Dr. Woodward's Account of the Deluge, etc. With a Comparison between Steno's Philosophy and the Doctor's, in the Case of Marine Bodies Dug out of the Earth. London.Google Scholar
Austin, S. A. 1984. Catastrophes in Earth History: a Source Book of Geologic Evidence, Speculation, and Theory. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon CA.Google Scholar
Austin, S. A. 1991. Floating logs and log deposits of Spirit Lake, Mount St. Helens Volcano National Monument, Washington. Abstracts and Programs, 1991 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, A85.Google Scholar
Austin, S. A. 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA.Google Scholar
Austin, S. A., Humphreys, D. R., Vardiman, L., Baumgardner, J. R., Snelling, A. A., and Wise, K. P. 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global flood model of Earth history. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, 609–621.Google Scholar
Bakewell, R. 1833. Introduction to Geology. Hezekiah Howe, New Haven.Google Scholar
Baumgardner, J. R. 1994. Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis flood. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, 63–75.Google Scholar
Bellers, F. 1710. A description of the several strata of earth, stone, coal &c found in a coal-pit at the west end of Dudley in Staffordshire. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 27:541–544.Google Scholar
Brand, L. R. 1979. Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) vertebrate footprints and their paleoecological implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 28:25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, L. R. 1992. Reply. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin. Geology, 20:668–670.Google Scholar
Brand, L. R. 1997. Faith, Reason, and Earth History. Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, MI.Google Scholar
Brand, L. R. and Tang, T. 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin. Geology, 19:1201–1204.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation, Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. 1823. Reliquiae Diluvianae. Reprint by Arno Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bugg, G. 1826. Scriptural Geology, n.p., London.Google Scholar
Burnet, T. 1965. The Sacred Theory of the Earth. Centaur Press, London.Google Scholar
Clark, H. W. 1946. The New Diluvialism. Science Publications, Angwin, CA.Google Scholar
Dillow, J. C. 1981. The Waters Above. Moody Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Fairbridge, R. 1960. The changing level of the sea. Scientific American, 202:70–79.Google Scholar
Fairholme, G. 1837. New and Conclusive Physical Demonstrations Both of the Fact and Period of the Mosaic Deluge. James Ridgway, London.Google Scholar
Fleming, J. 1826. The geological deluge, as interpreted by Baron Cuvier and Professor Buckland, inconsistent with the testimony of Moses and the phenomena of nature. Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, 14:205–239.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, E. 1837–8. The historical and geological deluges compared. The American Biblical Repository, 9:78–139, 10:328–374, 11:1–27.Google Scholar
Lockley, M. G. 1992. Comment on “Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin.” Geology, 20:666–667.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loope, D. B. 1992. Comment on “Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin.” Geology, 20:667–668.Google Scholar
Lucchitta, I. 1990. History of the Grand Canyon and of the Colorado River in Arizona, p. 311–332. In Beus, S. S. and Morales, M. (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Middleton, L. T., Elliott, D. K., and Morales, M. 1990. Coconino sandstone, p. 183–202. In Beus, S. S. and Morales, M. (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nelson, B. 1931. The Deluge Story in Stone. Augsburg Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Nevins, S. E. 1971. The Mesa basalt of the northwestern United States. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 7:222–226.Google Scholar
Nevins, S. E. 1972. Is the Capitan Limestone a fossil reef? Creation Research Society Quarterly, 8:231–248.Google Scholar
Numbers, R. L. 1992. The Creationists: the Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
Patten, D. W. 1966. The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch. Pacific Meridian, Seattle.Google Scholar
Penn, G. 1822. A Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies. Ogle, Duncan, London.Google Scholar
Prestwich, J. 1895. On Certain Phenomena Belonging to the Close of the Last Geological Period and on Their Bearing upon the Tradition of the Flood. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Price, G. M. 1913. The Fundamentals of Geology. Pacific Press, Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
Price, G. M. 1923. The New Geology. Pacific Press, Mountain View, CA.Google Scholar
Rehwinkel, A. 1951. The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Ryan, W. B. F. and Pitman, W. C. 1999. Noah's Flood: the New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed History. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
Scheven, J. 1990. The flood/post-flood boundary in the fossil record. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, v. 2, 247–266.Google Scholar
Suess, E. 1883. Das Antlitz der Erde, Vol. 1. Tempsky. Vienna.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, J. 1817. Short Introduction to the Study of Geology, Comprising a New Theory of the Elevation of the Mountains and the Stratification of the Earth, in Which the Mosaic Account of the Creation and the Deluge is Vindicated. London.Google Scholar
Visher, G. S. 1990. Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd ed. Penn Well Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK.Google Scholar
Warren, E. 1690. Geologia; or, A Discourse concerning the Earth before the Deluge, Wherein the Form and Properties Ascribed to It, in a Book Intituled ‘The Theory of the Earth,’ Are Excepted against and It is Made Appear, That the Dissolution of that Earth Was Not the Cause of the Universal Flood. Reprint by Arno Press, New York.Google Scholar
Watelin, L. C. and Langdon, S. 1925–1930. Excavations at Kish. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Whiston, W. 1696. A New Theory of the Earth. Reprint by Arno Press, New York.Google Scholar
Whitcomb, J. C. and Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1695. An Essay toward a Natural History of the Earth and Terrestrial Bodies, Especially Minerals, as Also of the Sea, Rivers, and Springs, with an Account of the Universal Deluge and of the Effects That It Had upon the Earth. Reprint by Arno Press, New York.Google Scholar
Woolley, C. L. 1929. Excavations at Ur, 1928–9. Antiquaries Journal, 9:305–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, G. F. 1902. Geological confirmations of the Noachian deluge. Bibliotheca Sacra, 59:282–293, 537–556, 695–716.Google Scholar
Young, D. A. 1995. The Biblical Flood: a Case Study of the Church's Response to Extra-biblical Evidence. Wm.B. Eerdmans, GrandRapids, MI.Google Scholar