 |
|||
Volume. XXII, No. 2 Review of "The Genesis Flood - The Biblical record and its scientific implications" by John Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris
This carefully written and well documented book co-authored by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (both recognised scholars in their own fields) is a classic apologetic for Biblical Creationism and the universality of the Flood described in the book of Genesis.
What is Biblical Creationism and the Flood? In a nutshell, Biblical record tells us that all things were created in six days, in an original condition of divine perfection. It also records that this original creation was cursed because of the entrance of sin into the world through Adam, and that the resultant moral and spiritual deterioration eventually brought on the judgment of the Great Flood. The Flood is said to have been of such great magnitude that it covered the whole world for an entire year, destroying all living things on the face of the earth, except those preserved in the ark.
The authors affirm their belief in the verbal inspiration of Scripture and its inerrancy and infallibility. That is why the first four chapters and the two appendixes are devoted to a detailed exposition and analysis of the Biblical teachings on creation, the Flood and related topics.
The authors too want the reader to consider the re-orientation of pertinent scientific data within the framework of Biblical Creationism and catastrophism. That is why the last three chapters attempt to explain the pertinent geological and other scientific data in the light of these Biblical teachings.
The book brings out the inadequacies of uniformitarianism (geologic history has been dominated by the concept of uniformitarianism which teaches that sedimentary rocks are assumed to have been laid down by ordinary process of deposition, at rates similar to those in effect at present) and evolution. Numerous scientific data from the disciplines of hydrology, geology and archeology are included in this book. Besides, opposing viewpoints are given careful and courteous treatment.
There is one particular section in the book which interested me a great deal, and I am sure it will be of interest to you too. It is known that radiocarbon dating has been used to find the age of fossils. What is the carbon 14 dating method? Serge Korff, an authority on cosmic rays says: "Cosmic ray neutrons, produced as secondary particles in the atmosphere by the original radiation, are captured by nitrogen nuclei to form the radioactive isotope carbon, the isotope of mass 14. This isotope has a long half life, something over 5,500 years. By the application of some very well thought out techniques, Libby (the first person to develop radiocarbon dating in 1946) and his colleagues have actually not only identified the radiocarbon in nature, but have also made quantitative estimates thereof. Since this carbon in the atmosphere mostly become attached to oxygen to form carbon dioxide, and since the carbon dioxide is ingested by plants and animals and is incorporated in their biological structures, and further, since this process stops at the time of death of the specimen, the percentage of radiocarbon among the normal carbon atoms in its system can be used to establish the data at which the specimen stops metabolising."
This book tells us that this very ingenious and powerful dating tool is only good, provided that the inherent assumptions are valid. These assumptions are:
- The carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant.
- The cosmic ray flux has been essentially constant - at least on the scale of centuries.
- The assumption of the constancy of the rate of decay of the carbon 14 atoms.
- The assumption that dead organic matter is not later altered with respect to its carbon constant by any biologic or other activity.
- The assumption that the carbon dioxide of the ocean and atmosphere has been constant with time.
- The assumption that the huge reservoir of oceanic carbon has not changed in size during the applicability of the method.
- The assumption that the rate of formation and the rate of decay of radiocarbon atoms have been in equilibrium throughout the period of applicability.
Apparently every one of these assumptions is highly questionable in the context of the events of creation and the deluge. (The opposing view is that the method has been verified beyond any question by numerous correlations with known dates.)
Conclusion: For the serious-minded Christian who desires to accept both the truths revealed in Scripture and the findings of science, I would recommend the reading of this book which is well documented and written in a courteous, fair, and scholarly manner.
Dn Ngie Joo Gong |
|