Below is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,
by Dr. Walt Brown. Copyright © Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound 8th edition (2008) and other materials.
Misleading Statements
For many years, AiG and a few at ICR have made frequent and inaccurate comments concerning CSC’s book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Several differences include:
- How much dust and regolith should be on a 4,600,000,000-year-old moon?7
- Is Archaeopteryx a bird or a fraud?
ICR’s Canopy Theory. Our biggest difference (largely hidden from the public for 30 years) is, “What flood explanation best corresponds to science and the Bible?” I proposed the hydroplate theory (HPT) in 1972, two years after ICR began. For several decades afterward, ICR taught millions of people what is now recognized by almost all creation researchers (including ICR) as the scientifically and biblically flawed canopy theory. It was first proposed by atheist Isaac Newton Vail in 1874, but adopted, without credit, and promoted, by Henry M. Morris, Jr. and John Whitcomb in 1961 in their otherwise important book, The Genesis Flood.10 [For a discussion of these problems, see "Did a Water Canopy Surround Earth and Contribute to the Flood?" on pages 536–544.]
In the 200 full-day seminars I held in the United States and Canada between 1981 and 1999, a frequent question in the hour-long question-and-answer period was my view of the canopy theory. I tried to answer each question briefly and factually (based on science and the Bible), without criticizing anyone. Nevertheless, my answers visibly shocked many in the audience. After only a year, a clearly displeased Henry Morris asked me to set up my own organization and no longer be associated with ICR.
ICR’s Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT). In 1998, ICR quietly acknowledged many fatal problems with the canopy theory and began advocating CPT, a variation of the evolution-based plate tectonic theory, but sped up a trillion times by assumed miracles not mentioned in the Bible. Miracles not mentioned in the Bible should not be claimed to solve scientific problems. That practice by some creationists in past centuries resulted in much of the scientific world’s hostility toward creationists. The media and many evolutionists still believe that is how creationists do science.
Figure 252: Convenient Miracles. Although the Bible speaks of specific miracles, that does not give us license to invoke other miracles to solve our scientific problems. That would violate the most basic rule of science, which is:
Scientific conclusions must be based on evidence and the laws of physics—not imagined miracles.
Evolutionists love to accuse creationists of violating this rule—a common practice in past centuries that produced hostility by many scientists to the Bible. Some of that hostility still exists. Fortunately only a few creationists invoke miracles today to solve their scientific problems.11
Almost any model or explanation for the flood (or anything else) could be patched together if its author, when confronted with a scientific problem, could simply claim that a miracle must have occurred. Of course, science would be in shambles if invoking self-serving miracles not mentioned in the Bible were allowed. Evolution requires many miracles. [See pages 7–108.]
Both plate tectonics (taught in almost all geology courses worldwide) and CPT are seriously flawed, biblically and scientifically. [See for example, "Does Recently Declassified Data Falsify Plate Tectonic Theory?" on page 515.] Nevertheless, since quietly abandoning the canopy theory, ICR has advocated their CPT and fueled opposition to the hydroplate theory. Other organizations have followed ICR’s lead: Answers in Genesis (AiG), Creation Ministries International (CMI) in Australia, and the Creation Research Society (CRS). These four organizations show little understanding of the science and are unwilling to debate the issue in an open forum: Plagiarism within ICR has also contributed to the tension. [See " The Plagiarism Controversy" on page 243, and Endnote 1 on page 542.
Bob Enyart, pastor of Denver Bible Church and a cohost of the radio program, Real Science Radio, has had a long and friendly relationship with all creation organizations. He learned of this conflict on his own and studied it thoroughly. He surprised me by bringing it out in the open in 2015 in a popular 3-hour DVD and Blue Ray production, “The Global Flood and the Hydroplate Theory,” which can be purchased at
rsr.org
A much abbreviated YouTube version of his program is at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGwaTF9l298
Perhaps the easiest way to understand this controversy is to listen to a 3-part radio interview between Pastor Enyart and engineer Jane Albright, who also thoroughly studied the controversy, but in a much different way—by direct, transcribed interviews with and questioning of all parties, followed by a series of four articles laying out her findings and recommendations. Both the radio interviews and articles can be found at
http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2016/20160722-BEL146.mp3
Her four articles are also posted at
calvarypo.org/noahs-flood-the-bible-the-science-the-controversy/
Albright made every effort to be thorough, fair, accurate, and independent. Her cordial, but detailed and transcribed interviews brought out, exposed, and squashed rumors and false gossip that had been swirling behind the scene for the past 30 years. She will provide others who wish to independently study this controversy with the names, organizational affiliations, contact information, and relevant documents of the 33 people she tried to interview. (About half refused.) Almost none of those interviewed had read the hydroplate theory. Albright gave all the opportunity to express their disagreements to me directly in a conference call or in a publicly available debate—oral or written. Everyone declined. [See pages 588–589.]
All were also given the opportunity to amend anything in her transcription of their interviews and to correct any error in her four articles. A leader of one of the above organizations complained that Albright was airing a lot of dirty laundry. After explaining past efforts to correct these problems and the harm this gossip and slander had done to the creation movement, she wrote back to him that “Alas, there is a time for ‘taking it to the church.’ I don’t see any examples in Scripture where God asks us to conceal sin.”
AiG and ICR have also distributed standardized letters containing incorrect information about CSC’s book. Informal misinformation continues, as do repercussions from past statements.12 While I welcome criticisms of my research, I do object to uninformed, false statements.13 Those who interact with these objectors soon learn that they have not read what they criticize.14 I have offered to debate all these issues orally or in writing in any fair and open forum. AiG has formally declined, saying that they are not scientifically qualified. A few at ICR have also sent letters declining.
AiG, as a counter to this offer, invited me to submit an article to their Technical Journal (TJ) which they proudly describe as a peer-reviewed journal. That simply means that AiG’s associates (so-called peers) pass judgment on what is submitted and make recommendations to AiG’s editor. Although AiG’s history of false comments would make anyone in my position cautious of their offer, other factors make it even less desirable.15
a. Concerning the flood, I would need to summarize 380 pages of evidence and explanations in a relatively short article, leaving much out and leaving readers with many honest questions. This effort would produce an incomplete paper in contrast to the full explanation, which reaches far more people, is already in my book, and can be read at no cost at www.creationscience.com. (In fact, at this time, googling on {creation evolution flood} consistently ranks our website as the most popular out of more than 564,000 web pages containing those words.)
b. The other scientific differences “bulleted” above, while smaller in scope, also relate to the flood in various ways. To address those topics requires first understanding the flood events.
c. Written efforts by others in favor of the hydroplate theory have been rejected by TJ.
d. Because of personal inclination and to conserve time, I never press my views on others (including other creation groups) or initiate such attempts. I simply make my case available, continue my research, try to improve this book’s accuracy and clarity, respond to questions and criticisms from those who have read what I have written, and gladly enter, as time permits, wide forums where ideas can be directly contrasted. (My staff consists of a part-time secretary.) I try to explain to those interested—whether they agree or disagree—not persuade those who are not interested or will not read.
For the past 30 years, some at AiG, ICR, and a few people close to those organizations have criticized the hydroplate theory by saying that it has not been “peer reviewed.” Actually, I would like it to be peer reviewed, provided:
a. The reviewers claim to be neutral, are named, and have read the latest version of the hydroplate theory.
b. I am allowed equal space to respond to the reviewer.
c. Our respective comments are open to the public.
A similar offer is on page 589. So far, no one has accepted.
As for peer review, a glance at the endnotes in this book will show that my work draws from about a thousand peer-reviewed papers in the most respected scientific journals. Those papers usually document what are anomalies for evolutionists, but are explained by the hydroplate theory.
What these critics probably mean is that they want the 380-page hydroplate theory reduced to a 3–6 page article that they might publish, or label as faulty. However, the hydroplate theory can’t be easily condensed. It involves many disciplines and deals with such diverse topics as the origin of the Grand Canyon, the ice age, earthquakes, ocean basins, the inner and outer cores of earth, frozen mammoths, comets, asteroids, trans-Neptunian objects, and earth’s radioactivity. Most of the hydroplate theory’s 25 major subtopics provide evidence for the other subtopics, so an incomplete explanation would leave out much supporting evidence and raise hundreds of reasonable questions. Besides, true preview journals do not accept previously published material, which eliminates almost all of what I would submit.
In September 2003, the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), which claims to be a peer-review journal, did publish my then unpublished article, “What Triggered the Flood?” See pages 477–483.) I found the CRSQ’s peer-review process shallow at best. By claiming to be a peer-review journal, the CRSQ can impress novices by claiming to be in the same league as hundreds of true peer-review journals.
Nevertheless, AiG/ICR and I are probably best able to critique each other’s views of the flood, so why don’t we begin? The principle is simple: If one advocates a position before an audience, he should be willing to defend it before that audience. Such an exchange—cordial and complete—would benefit all, especially creationists.
However, I have sadly come to feel that ICR and AiG do not want their ideas concerning the flood tested by a thorough public contrast with the hydroplate theory. Both groups depend on donations and may be trying to maintain, among donors and followers, an image of scientific accuracy and leadership.
Teaching indefensible theories—including the canopy theory—has mislead many. Decades of harm, unrepaired by ICR and AiG, have resulted. They taught the canopy theory to millions, who, in turn, have advocated it to tens of millions. It is now rooted in many churches worldwide. Who should clean up that misinformation, now that almost all researchers know it is wrong?
Frequently, people write, call, and email, seeking my reaction to criticisms from these four organizations, but I don’t have time to respond to each individual. If I tried, I would become a full-time “firefighter,” never able to complete scientific studies and other projects. However, my offer to debate all scientific disagreements with them stands. If enough pages were allocated and a neutral editor selected, the full exchange could be published in an independent journal, perhaps the Creation Research Society Quarterly, or even in technical journals published by AiG or Creation Ministries International (CMI). Others will need to encourage ICR, AiG, CMI, and CRS to participate.