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.
1. Phillip E. Johnson, the main architect of the intelligent design (ID) movement, calls this “the wedge strategy.” [See his excellent book, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000).] In 2001, Phillip Johnson made clear to me in a cordial, private conversation that he felt the flood should not be discussed; it was too complicated. I disagreed.
2. “Stick with the most important thing—the mechanism and the building up of information [in living things]. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate, because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy.” Phillip E. Johnson, as quoted in “Berkeley’s Radical,” The Wayback Machine, 4 June 2002, p. 5.
3. “We also seek to build up a popular base of [financial] support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians.” Phillip E. Johnson et al., “The Wedge,” July/August 1999 at: www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
4. See "Big Bang?" on page 33 and "Why Is the Universe Expanding?" on page 447.
5. Ross once admitted to me that he knew he had some biblical problems.
6. One issue is plagiarism. For one example, see page 243. Those who read that two-page sidebar and request all the backup correspondence will see other examples. ICR’s leaders were given the opportunity to point out (and have removed) any errors before it was published. None were given.
Some plagiarized material is featured in AiG’s museum and in their DVD, Flood Geology. Others have notified AiG’s leaders of the problems, but are simply told to see AiG’s lawyers.
Why is this a problem? Those who want to know more need to be able to find the primary source to learn how solutions were reached, their limitations, alternate solutions, and who to contact if further research is planned. A lesser concern is that individuals who first read unreferenced material and later read the same material from its true originator, may think the originator plagiarized.
7. In 1993, AiG and ICR announced, much to the delight of evolutionists, that the thickness of the “moon dust” was consistent with the evolutionist age for the moon—4,500,000,000 years.
Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer [of the moon], and that which trace-element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists’ time scale. Andrew A. Snelling (AiG) and David E. Rush (ICR), “Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System,” Technical Journal, Vol. 7, Part 1, September–November 1993, p. 39.
Of course, AiG and ICR do not believe the moon is 4.5-billion years old, but from 1993–2015 they forcefully told creationists not to use the “moon-dust argument,” because measurements support the evolutionists’ position. I am convinced that a correct analysis shows that the moon is young. ICR and AiG made four major mistakes in their unnecessarily lengthy paper about moon-dust. They are listed on page 601. The data ICR and AiG used and the calculations they made were correct but incomplete.
One reason AiG and ICR told creationists not to use the “moon-dust argument” was because they believed it was based on erroneous experimental techniques of Hans Pettersson. Pettersson’s results, which I have always known were faulty and have never used, was popularized among creationists by ICR. [See Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (San Diego, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 151–152.]
On their own initiative, many people have told AiG (and ICR) of their likely errors concerning “moon-dust” and encouraged them to read the brief, but complete, explanation on pages 600–602. AiG’s response is that I must submit an article to their magazine’s editor. Having an honest technical disagreement is one thing; adamantly ignoring the evidence and calculations while telling hundreds of thousands what they should do and believe is quite another.
8. Michael Oard, a frequent writer for ICR and AiG, provides ICR’s and AiG’s position on the frozen mammoths. Oard’s views are analyzed and contrasted with the hydroplate theory on pages 269–299. After sending my critique to Oard in 2006, I offered to respond in writing to any comments or disagreements he would send me, but none were sent.
9. Michael Oard has also proposed that the Grand Canyon formed as the flood waters drained from the earth. On 1 February 2006, he wrote and asked me to show him the evidence that supports my explanation for the Grand Canyon (since published on pages 217–250). I was confident that he would not be able to find some of the remote locations to see the evidence for himself. Nor would I be present to answer the objections Oard had been raising publicly.
So I offered to take him to the actual locations if a mutual friend of ours (senior geologist, Brent Carter) would organize a group of at least seven geologists to accompany us. Each geologist was to read beforehand the hydroplate theory and Oard’s theory. On the field trip, Oard and I would each take three days to show the group our evidence.
Both Oard and our friend agreed, and the group of seven geologists was formed. We met at the Grand Canyon on 17 July 2006. For the first three days, I took the group to many of the formations shown on pages 217–250. The fourth day, when it was Oard’s turn to show us the three-days of evidence he promised, he announced he had none to show us. Unfortunately, our group then adjourned three days early.
Instead of evidence, what Oard has published many times is a story, but nothing that can be physically examined, tested, and compared with alternate explanations. That is not science.
10. Indeed, the canopy theory is an example of using others’ material without giving the source. Evolutionist Isaac Newton Vail published that theory between 1874 and 1902 in dozens of papers and a book. Later, in 1961, The Genesis Flood, by John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, popularized the canopy theory. The authors made a few changes to Vail’s canopy theory and put a biblical interpretation on it, but Vail’s name and initial contribution were never acknowledged in any way.
Despite Henry Morris’ advocacy of the canopy theory until his death in 2006 and his opposition for most of his life to the idea that the continents moved, he had a remarkable understanding of the Bible and its description of the flood. [See Endnote 10 on page 506.]
11. ICR and AiG sometimes invoke miracles to solve their scientific problems. For example, their explanation for the flood is catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT), developed by John R. Baumgardner with help from coauthors Steve A. Austin, D. Russell Humphreys, Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, and Larry Vardiman. Baumgardner acknowledges his miracles:
Finally, it seem (sic) evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood or modeled in terms of time- invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God in the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include an enhanced rate of nuclear decay during the event [Required Miracle #1] and a loss of thermal energy afterward [Required Miracle #2]. John R. Baumgardner, “Numerical Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying the Flood,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1986), p. 24.
...the physical laws were somehow altered by God to cause the [flood] catastrophe to unfold within the time frame of the Biblical record. John R. Baumgardner, “The Imperative of Non-Stationary Natural Law [Miracles] in Relation to Noah’s Flood,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, December 1990, p. 98.
One of Baumgardner’s specific difficulties is explaining why his crustal plates suddenly dove into the mantle as the flood began. He explains:
An initial temperature perturbation is required to initiate motions within the spherical shell domain that represents the earth’s mantle. For this, a temperature perturbation of -400 K to a depth of a few hundred kilometers is introduced around most of the perimeter of the supercontinent. John R. Baumgardner, “A Constructive Quest for Truth,” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2002, p. 80.
Why does Baumgardner “introduce” a sudden temperature drop in the top “few hundred kilometers” of the earth, along what are now 15,000 miles of unconnected ocean trenches? If so much rock (10-million cubic miles) suddenly became 720°F (400 K) colder, the rock’s density would increase, so much it might fracture the earth’s crust globally, forming plates (Required Miracle #3). Then, the edges of some plates might be so dense they would sink into the mantle (Required Miracle #4) just as a rock sinks into water. If so, subduction might begin. But just to be sure, Baumgardner assumes the mantle was much less viscous than today (Required Miracle #5).
It is proposed that the mantle’s viscosity at [the time of the flood] was lower than at present to permit rapid sinking of the lithosphere into the mantle ... John R. Baumgardner, “3-D Finite Element Simulation of the Global Tectonic Changes Accompanying Noah’s Flood,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 1990), p. 35.
He then claims this is how the global flood began, but that is incorrect. The Bible says the flood began on the “day all the fountains of the great deep burst open” (Genesis 7:11). Catastrophic Plate Tectonics would not produce “fountains of the great deep” any more than a very large and hot volcanic eruption on an ocean floor would produce a jet of water shooting up from the ocean’s surface. [See the statement by Henry M. Morris in Endnote 10 on page 506.]
Required Miracle #6: Temperatures cannot drop below absolute zero (-460°F), so it is impossible for anything colder than a blazing hot 260°F to drop 720°F! (260 - 720 = -460) This is not, as the title of Baumgardner’s paper ironically claims, “a constructive quest for truth.”
Baumgardner admits that miraculously freezing and sinking so much rock creates another problem. As cold rock sinks, hot rock deep in the earth must simultaneously circulate up to the earth’s surface. The heat is so great that it would take millions of years for just half of that heat to radiate from the earth. Therefore, he needs Required Miracle #7: God must have removed that heat—quickly. Why? Because the global flood happened, and the earth’s surface today is not extremely hot. If the heat wasn’t removed quickly, the earth would have experienced a runaway greenhouse effect and life on earth would cease forever. [See “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” on page 626.]
Once the flood begins, Baumgardner must invoke Miracle #8 to produce the blanket of sediments that is spread over the continents to an average depth of 2,000 meters (1.2 miles). Those sediments must be deposited rapidly during the flood to trap and bury the plants and animals we see in the fossil record. How does he explain that? He imagines there was a moon-size body orbiting so close to earth that tides 2,500 meters (1.6 miles) high were produced in a few days. Those tides eroded the needed sediments. This dramatic miracle is repeated six times!
Baumgardner’s “supertides” lasted 150 days. Turbulent, cavitating, high-velocity water averaged 45 miles per hour! Why weren’t all plants, animals, and the Ark pulverized? Where is that moon-size body today? No answers were given. (Miracles 9 and 10 might be needed to answer those questions.) [See John R. Baumgardner, “Explaining the Continental Fossil-Bearing Sediment Record in Terms of the Genesis Flood,” Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 2013).]
Without retracting the above explanation, but realizing its many problems, Baumgardner proposed another explanation. His subducting plate doesn’t dive smoothly or rapidly. It dives with jerks. Each jerk produces a catastrophic tsunami that erodes and distributes worldwide the mile-thick layer of sediments he needs. [See John R. Baumgardner, “Numerical Modeling of the Large-Scale Erosion, Sediment Transport, and Deposition Processes of the Genesis Flood,” Answers Research Journal, Vol. 9, 24 February, 2016, pp. 1–24.]
With just a little thought, it should be clear that earth’s vast volume of sediments had to be eroded by subsurface erosion, not merely surface erosion. [See item 11 on page 203.]
Catastrophic plate tectonics requires other miracles. The hydroplate theory requires no convenient miracle (a miracle not mentioned in the Bible but claimed to solve a scientific problem). The flood and its many consequences follow from the laws of physics and three starting assumptions, for which there is clear biblical support. [See page 122.]
Another example of invoking a miracle to solve a scientific problem occurred in ICR’s RATE Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). After spending 1.5 million donated dollars over 8 years, the long-awaited RATE study claimed that God must have removed an unbelievable amount of heat; otherwise, all oceans would have evaporated. [See “Understanding Accelerated Decay” on page 617, and Larry Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 2005), pp. 761–763.] "The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity" on pages 386–441 answers these questions without claiming self-serving miracles.
12. For many details by an organization independent of CSC, see http://www.calvarypo.org/HANDS/flood1.pdf .
13. Lengthy, private correspondence, asking for this to stop has been unsuccessful. This has hurt the creation-science movement much more than it has damaged CSC.
14. The writer of ICR’s latest standardized letter criticizing the hydroplate theory later admitted that he had not read the theory. Requests for the calculations, which he claimed falsified the hydroplate theory, have been ignored. My corresponding calculations support the theory.
u A pastor, seeing AiG’s hostility toward CSC, flew to talk with AiG’s leader, Ken Ham, directly. The pastor wrote the following:
I wanted to appeal to Ken to at least read Walt’s book. I gave him a copy of “In the Beginning.” In our meeting, Ken was hostile and arrogant toward Walt personally and toward the hydroplate theory. Ken didn’t provide any technical arguments and admitted that he had never read Walt’s theory. I left the material with Ken and encouraged him to read it with an open mind.
The following May (2000), Ken was a guest speaker at our pastors’ conference. Following his presentation, I asked him if he had read the materials I gave him the previous September. He said he had not. What was shocking to me was he still refused to read Walt’s book, even though the hydroplate theory is the only flood theory which explains many aspects of the flood and answers the questions of where the water came from and where it went.
I contacted other prominent AiG and ICR detractors of Walt’s theory trying to learn their technical reasons for disagreement. Not one responded with any kind of technical argument, written or oral. What continued to shock me, was that none had read the book. One detractor, Russ Humphreys of ICR, agreed to make a technical response if I would send him a free copy of the book. I sent the book. Six weeks later, he told me that he still had not read the book, did not intend to, and would not make any kind of technical response, since he knew the catastrophic plate tectonic theory was correct and therefore the hydroplate theory had to be wrong.
... The Biblically and scientifically sound hydroplate theory could be a “silver bullet” in the wicked heart of the evolution lie.
u A faithful financial supporter of AiG, sent a detailed letter to AiG pointing out errors in a recent series of letters AiG published (Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 69–73). He wrote:
I believe each man is entitled to disagree with Brown’s model. However, written misrepresentation of that model is another issue altogether. ... I suggest that someone at TJ [The Technical Journal] read and study Brown’s work before allowing this blatant misrepresentation to happen again. Shame on the editors for letting this type of poor work get out. ... You folks are making it mighty difficult for [my wife and me] to come up with reasons to support poorly written work. I suggest you get some of these things ironed out soon. As for Michael Oard and John Baumgardner, I suggest they read/reread Brown’s latest edition or better yet, give him a call.
u For years, others have sent similar, unsolicited reports.
15. From its website, AiG has said in blunt terms that I should submit an article and “play by the rules”—meaning “their rules.”