The Plagiarism Controversy

This controversy, and all pertaining documentation, which anyone is free to read, has been studied and reported on by many people. One of the easiest to understand was a radio broadcast which can be heard at

https://kgov.com/the-initial-conditions-that-preceded-the-grand-canyon

In 1972, I proposed the hydroplate theory. After a year of study and field work in Arizona, Utah, and Colorado in 1986–1987, I located, using geological and topological features, the boundaries of a large, now-extinct lake and named it Grand Lake. [See Figure 119 on page 216.] Beginning, in my fall 1988 seminars and on a 16 September 1988 radio broadcast over 200 stations,⁹³ I described Grand Lake’s key features, location and how its breaching formed the Grand Canyon. This explanation for the Grand Canyon was first published in July 1989.⁹⁴ Another extinct lake, Hopi Lake, was described earlier by R. B. Scarborough.⁹⁵

Dr. Steven A. Austin of The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), as he eventually admitted in writing, purchased that 1989, 5th edition of In the Beginning “in August 1989, weeks after it was published.” [Steven Austin, personal correspondence, 29 August 1994.] In early 1990, Austin published, as if they were his, key ideas of mine about Grand Lake and the formation of the Grand Canyon. I learned this on 7 May 1990, but said nothing about it for three years. On 4 November 1990, two people told me that Austin, on the previous day, said in a large public presentation that I took those key ideas from him. Again, I kept silent.

By mid-June 1993, Austin’s false allegations against me were spreading to a wide audience connected to ICR and starting to harm others. For example, in September 1992, Dr. Robert V. Gentry filmed me at the Grand Canyon presenting the Grand Lake explanation, as part of a professional and expensive video production. Then, on 10 June 1993, Gentry told me that Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (who had worked closely with Austin and was then at ICR) was reporting that I had plagiarized ideas of Austin’s. Humphreys later wrote that he did not use the word plagiarize,” but Gentry insists that was the intended meaning. Gentry told Humphreys that he did not believe that was true, but was naturally concerned about the consequences of those allegations for his film production, so he appealed to me for help. I then realized that the issue had to be addressed.

By way of background, geologists have known since at least 1861 that canyons can be catastrophically carved in weeks by waters suddenly released by the breaching of a lake’s boundary.²⁷ The discoveries of J Harlen Bretz in 1923 have also shown this to generations of undergraduate geology students.³⁰

In 1980, Austin and many others saw that a small lake on Mount St. Helens had breached and the escaping water had quickly carved a tiny canyon. In 1985, John H. Whitmore, a student of Austin’s, wondered in a term paper if the former Hopi Lake (now a dry lake bed directly east of the Grand Canyon) could have breached the Kaibab Plateau and carved the Grand Canyon. That would have been highly unlikely, because (1) the Kaibab Plateau is about 2,000 feet higher than Hopi lake could have been, (2) the water would have had to penetrate 30 miles of hard rock that was denser than concrete, and (3) any spillage down such a gradual slope to the west would erode little material.⁹⁶

In 1986, Dr. Edmond Holroyd told Austin that if a dam were built across the Colorado River near Grand Canyon Village, a very large lake would form. Its area would have included and been larger than Hopi Lake and Grand Lake combined. Holroyd drew his hypothetical lake on a map and noted that some believed that if a very long east-west fault had then developed between what are now the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon, the lake’s escaping waters might have carved the Grand Canyon. However, such an east-west fault has never been found, and faults in the Grand Canyon region typically run perpendicular to the canyon, not parallel. Furthermore, a canyon that eroded along a fault would not bend or meander, as the Grand Canyon does.

The discoveries of Newberry²⁷ and Bretz³⁰ and speculations of Whitmore and Holroyd led Austin to wonder (in a very tentative way, as his writings show) if the breaching of Hopi Lake, directly east of the Grand Canyon, had carved the Grand Canyon. Austin probably knew the serious problems (mentioned above) that faced any proposal that the Grand Canyon was carved by the breaching of Hopi Lake. What he did not realize, as his writings exposed,⁹⁷ was that a much larger and separate post-flood lake, Grand Lake, was north of Hopi Lake. Austin was unable to produce any spoken or written record showing that he knew, before 1989, anything about Grand Lake. However, in 1990, he published a map—shockingly similar to the one I had published in 1989—showing, as he labeled it, “Grand Lake” and giving its elevation (5,700 feet above sea level)—just as I had announced in many forums a year earlier in 1988 and published in 1989, along with the boundaries of Grand Lake and its breach point.

When Grand Lake breached, the escaping water also caused the breaching of the northwest corner of Hopi Lake. Both breach points are easily seen at the extreme north and south ends of Marble Canyon. In fact, the two breach points define Marble Canyon and explain many of its unusual characteristics described in this chapter. I call the northern breach point (where Grand Lake spilled) the funnel. [Pictures of it are on pages 224–225.] The southern breach point (where Hopi Lake spilled) is marked by the unique terrain where the Little Colorado River enters the Colorado River. The near simultaneous breaching of both lakes carved the Grand Canyon in weeks, and upwarped the Kaibab Plateau via the water-balloon effect (explained on page 226.) The torrent of waters then cut down through the rising Kaibab Plateau. This chapter presents two-dozen other evidences, which I gathered in 1988–1989, that confirm the Grand Lake explanation.

The chapters "The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview" (pages 113–150), Liquefaction (pages 197–214), and Limestone (pages 261–266) fit together other key pieces of the puzzle: What produced all the sediments, layered the strata, and sorted the fossils? What cemented the rocks so uniformly? Why does the Grand Canyon expose so much limestone? How was limestone produced? What raised the Kaibab Plateau and how could the Colorado River flow through it? What forces, energy, and mechanisms lifted the Rocky Mountains and raised the Colorado Plateau so high? The Grand Canyon would not exist if the Colorado Plateau had not first rapidly risen more than a mile above sea level, and lifted two large lakes. (Large lakes rarely form at such high elevations, where rainfall is rare and evaporation is rapid).⁹⁸ If the Grand Canyon is a consequence of a global flood, where did all the flood water come from, and where did it go afterwards? Centuries after the flood, was there enough water to transport 2,800 cubic miles of dirt, and where is it today? Attempts to explain the Grand Canyon

After pondering Bob Gentry’s appeal for me to respond to Humphreys’ false allegation, I realized I needed to go to the source of these spreading accusations. (If I had simply been seeking priority over a lake’s name, as some have alleged, I would have done so years earlier.) So, on 18 June 1993, I wrote Austin explaining the seriousness of the matter and asked if it was true that he had made these accusations against me. That same day, I also wrote ICR’s Director, Dr. Henry M. Morris (now deceased) to inform him of this issue.

In all, Morris, Austin, and I exchanged six letters during the summer of 1993. Austin always denied that he had accused me of plagiarism, although I explained how he could contact those who heard him and were shocked by what he had said. He never contacted those witnesses. He also denied taking any ideas of mine, although some details he published were so specific that they obviously had come from my work. With each attempt to evade, he created more problems for himself and left his fingerprints.⁹⁹ (Mapmakers usually place on their maps tiny, unique details—even intentional errors—so that anyone who copies the map will be clearly shown to be guilty of copyright infringement.) Austin tried in several deceptive ways to show that he had come up with the Grand Lake explanation first. They were easily shown to be false—as a reading of all our correspondence clearly shows.⁹⁷

For example, he backdated his 1989 Guidebook by one year, giving it an incorrect 1988 copyright date. This is easily seen by the many later dates in those pages.¹⁰⁰

By 1991, Austin realized plagiarism and copyright infringement were shown by his using the name “Grand Lake” on a map in his Guidebook he sold. Therefore, he changed his name for the lake to “Canyonlands Lake.” Having two names for the lake responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon will continue to produce confusion and prevent others from going to the source for the evidence and full explanation for Grand Canyon’s origin.

By 19 August 1993, it was clear that Austin, Morris and I would not be able to resolve the issue ourselves, so I proposed in a letter to Morris and Austin that we put the unpleasant matter into the hands of an independent Christian arbitrator to thoroughly study and resolve. Morris and Austin flatly refused. Denials and “bobbing and weaving” continued. Finally, after exchanging thirteen more letters, I told Morris and Austin that if they did not allow this matter to be arbitrated, so it would not create further dissension, confusion, and accusations against me and my associates, I would make the issue public. They reluctantly agreed, but, in various ways, thwarted all efforts to seek arbitration. For example, after consulting with their lawyer, and only four days before the arbitration was to take place, they backed out of their written agreement to arbitrate and announced that they would participate only in nonbinding mediation. (Arbitration is binding.) After months of effort, and having finally reached agreement on the time, place, and arbitrator, I felt betrayed. With plane tickets purchased and all preparations in place, I decided to proceed anyway, hoping mediation would produce an agreement. This mediation occurred on 21 June 1994.

However, by 28 September 1994, Austin had clearly broken even the agreement we signed at the mediation, as a reading of our correspondence will show. I also wrote everyone involved, including Henry Morris Jr. and all members of ICR’s board of directors, that Austin had broken the agreement. ICR’s misinformation is still being spread. Therefore, to answer questions from those hearing this misinformation, the entire matter will be placed on the table for anyone to examine. People can reach their own conclusions.¹⁰¹

Notice that I followed the procedure laid out in Matthew 18:15-17. First, privately speak to the party you believe acted wrongly. Second, if he denies the allegations, present one or two witnesses to verify the allegations. Third, if that does not produce change, tell the church. I am now telling the church—the body of believers. Anyone wishing to receive a free CD containing all correspondence and writings between Morris, Austin, and me can simply mail a stamped, self-addressed CD mailer containing a blank CD-ROM and case to:

      CSC, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, AZ 85016

Some have asked why Austin and I never worked together.

On several occasions, I have offered to debate the scientific merits of our respective understandings of the flood, but ICR always declines. One simple, quick format is explained in “What Is the Direct (Oral and Written) Refereed Exchange?” on page 585.