A Modern Framework for Earth Sciences in a Christian Context
Ó 2004 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.
The Disciplines of Earth Sciences.
Geology concerns
itself with understanding the earth's composition and structure and its
modifying agents and processes. Geologists study the formation of minerals and
rocks, weathering, erosion, earthquakes, and crustal
deformation.
Geologists find employment in a variety of environments. Today, as has
been true for most of the past century, the oil industry is the single largest
employer of professional geologists. The industry employs geologists and
geophysicists in virtually every division from exploration and production to
management. Many of the leaders in the petroleum industry are geologists who
have worked their way up through the ranks. In the exploration division,
geologists are responsible for discovering new prospects, for evaluating
potentials of prospects, for directing and bringing in new discoveries, and for
managing and overseeing production. The petroleum industry is one of the few
areas of employment where a geologist can begin a career as an independent,
although such ventures are generally undertaken after some incubation time with
a major producer. At present approximately 37 percent of all graduates in
geology are employed in the petroleum industry or in government agencies
regulating or overseeing petroleum production. This figure includes geologists
trained in a variety of subspecialties.
During the last twenty years our increasing awareness of and
appreciation for the value and fragile nature of our environment has provided a another major opportunity for employment of geoscientists
in environmental geology. These geologists either work for industry, the
government, or for independent consulting firms that specialize in
environmental concerns. They assess the impact of geology-related activities on
the environment such as geological disturbances resulting from human activity (e.g.
mining), or from natural forces (e.g. landslides or earthquakes). One graduate
in three in the field of geology will work in the area of environmental
geology.
The mining industry employs just less than ten percent of graduates in
geology. As in the petroleum industry, these individuals are involved either
directly in exploration, or in production, or management of the mining
industry, or in governmental oversight of the industry. Geologist employed in
the mining industry may be required to travel to remote areas of the globe,
perhaps for extended periods of time, in search of mineral resources.
The university trains and educates geologists in preparation for
employment. It is also the source of research activities that make possible an
increasing knowledge and understanding of the earth. Those wishing employment
in academia will take additional training, depending upon the level of
education they wish to enter. For elementary or high school teachers, a
bachelor’s degree in geology with teacher certification is entry level.
However, a professorial position at a university will require an advanced
degree, generally a Ph.D. In this capacity, the geologist will be able to train
students in the discipline, and to carry out independent research projects advancing
the frontiers of knowledge. About eight percent of geology graduates enter
professional education as a career.
The remaining graduates find employment in a variety of private and
governmental jobs. Volcanologists study the behavior
and origin of volcanoes. Remote sensing is a field involving the reading and
interpretation of geological data contained in satellite images for use in
government and industry. Hydrology is the exploration for and development and
protection of water resources. Geophysicists study, among other things, the
behavior and nature of the earth's crust, including exploration of the ocean
floor and the deep earth. Seismologists study the activities resulting from
movement of the surface of the earth. They are concerned with understanding the
processes involved and seeking to predict earth movements in order to save
lives and properties.
Some of our most valuable natural resources are either composed of
fossils or derived from fossils. These include oil, generally believed to have
been derived from the thermal alteration of the remains of plants and animals;
coal, produced from the carbonization of plant fossils; limestone, derived from
the skeletal remains of marine organisms; marble, produced by the metamorphic
alteration of limestone; and diatomaceous earth derived from the skeletal
remains of fossil marine organisms. The paleontologist must be knowledgeable
not only about the fossils themselves, but also about the rocks that contain
the fossils and the conditions of burial and subsequent modification.
As with geologists, the majority of paleontologists are employed in the
petroleum industry. Paleontologists are responsible for developing the stratigraphy (the general ordering of the layers) and
determining the depth to strata during the drilling of wells. They also have
responsibility for mapping and assessment of petroleum potential based upon the
analysis of fossils, generally microfossils such as pollen and spores or marine
microplanktonic forms.
Another sizable contingent of paleontologists are employed in
environmental geology, where they are responsible for the assessment of natural
resources and the preservation of irreplaceable fossil forms. This work may
include the development of environmental impact statements in association with
the construction of highways, pipelines, buildings and other construction
projects.
Some paleontologists find employment as educators at the secondary
levels and in colleges and universities. Because paleontologists deal with the
fossilized remains of biological organisms, they are often found working in
close association with biologists and may hold joint academic appointments in
geology and biology departments.
Vertebrate paleontologists are most often employed in museums and in
environmental projects where the bones of vertebrates are involved. Vertebrate
paleontology has become an increasingly popular field in recent years because
of the phenomenal popularity of dinosaurs. Vertebrate paleontologists may be
involved in the acquisition of specimens in the field, preparation of the
specimens in the laboratory, or curation of the collections and the production
of displays for the museum. Occasionally, even small regional museums may have
a vertebrate paleontologist on staff, especially in the southwest.
Unfortunately, there are few other jobs for vertebrate paleontologists except
for an occasional opening in academia.
Relating to professionals in the field as well as to the culture at
large
Western society and to a large extent, the global economy, is built on
the backbone of the petroleum industry. No other industry has generated so much
wealth for so many people. Concerns about petroleum were a major factor in the
defense of Kuwait during the Gulf War and continue to be a central focus in the
Iraq war and other Middle Eastern conflicts. The price of oil is a major
economic issue. If the price of oil drops, the country's economy booms,
although hardship may result in the "oil patch" states. Geologists
and paleontologists are particularly susceptible to job losses at these times.
Inevitably, the price of oil rises, geologists are rehired, and the petroleum
industry returns to prosperity, whereas society as a whole may suffer hardship
as a result of the increased price of petroleum products.
Geologists and geophysicists are responsible for uncovering new
petroleum resources. These discoveries, so important when the price of oil is
high, become more and more essential as we continue to deplete our global
reserves of petroleum. The future for exploration geologists appears to be a
good one for the coming generation.
Geologists in the mining industry supply the raw materials and manage
the production: iron and coal for the manufacture of steel, sand for making
glass; copper, precious metals and rare earths for the electronics industry and
for a multitude of other uses. Geologists are responsible for the discovery and
exploitation of these resources, as well as the conservation of the environment
in the wake of the mining activities. So long as the demand for new resources
continues, geologists will be needed to discover and develop them.
The awakening of society to global concerns for the protection of our
resources and our environment gives environmental geologists critical roles for
guarding and seeking to understand the nature of the earth and its material
resources. The work they are engaged in will continue to grow in importance as
the depletion of our natural resources is threatened, and as the potential for
contamination of our environment continues.
Geologists and paleontologists in academic settings work to develop an
understanding of the past history of the earth and of life on the earth.
Insofar as these theories impact theology, this aspect of the disciplines is of
particular concern to Christians and to Christian education.
Important areas for future and contiued growth in the earth sciences.
Application of Plate Tectonics. The revolution in thinking concerning earth's moving lithospheric plates has had a profound influence in nearly
every aspect of geology. The scale of the processes and the enormity of the
consequences resulting from the shifting of lithospheric
plates are difficult to comprehend. Unfortunately, many contemporary geological
studies are being completed with little consideration of the potential impact
from plate tectonics. As a result, the global significance of important
observations may be overlooked. For example, recently geologists were able to
reconstruct the largest volcanic event on record from flood basalts (molten
rock that flows in great horizontal sheets) in South America, North America,
Spain and West Africa. The flows covered an area of nearly 3 million square
miles. Even though most of the individual flows had been known and studied for
years, the magnitude of the event was not understood until the impact of plate
tectonics was carefully considered. There are still great opportunities for
reevaluating conventional ideas and for critical analysis of old geologic
problems in the light of plate tectonics.
Environmental Geology. Geologists often work at the interface between
natural resources and the exploiters of those resources. Advancing technology
permits the economical extraction of lower grades of ore from greater
quantities of source rock. However a commensurate price is exacted in greater
impact on the environment. Larger oil containers mean a greater economy in
transport and storage, but at an ever-greater risk to the environment. Man is
expanding his habitat into areas of greater environmental hazard as the cost
and availability of suitable building sites dictates. Risks to buildings and
their occupants must be taken into account in the equation. The competition for
water rights between burgeoning urban areas and agriculture requires careful
planning and arbitration, as well as a thorough understanding of the sources
and limitations of the water supplies. Increasing importance must be assigned
to the development of sound and responsible policies for the use and management
of global resources. A forward-looking policy must be formulated and
implemented to protect and preserve the resources and the environment. Careful
policies can make the difference between moral and economic bankruptcy and a
prosperous future. These decisions must be made today in order to ensure that
there will be a future.
Actualism as a construct. As used originally by Lyell, the term
‘uniformitarianism’ referred to the premise that past geological processes were
more or less identical to processes occurring at present, and the geologic past
could only be explained in terms of these observable processes. The concept is
best expressed in the geological catch phrase, "the present is the key to
the past." The concept of Lyellian
Uniformitarianism provided a scientific basis for modern geology. If, for
example, a modern meandering stream resulted in the formation of a certain type
of sedimentary feature, then using uniformitarian principles, the conclusion
would be that rocks containing that particular structure were formed in ancient
meandering streams.
With time and additional data, it became clear to geologists that Lyellian uniformitarianism did not stand up to careful
scrutiny. For instance, a consideration of the magnitude of certain geological
phenomena, such as giant debris flows, implied that past processes must at
times have involved forces far above the range of forces experienced on the
earth today. At the same time, a careful study of present day-to-day geological
processes indicates that those forces are hardly involved at all. For example,
on the occasion of the centennial celebration of Powell's historic traverse of
the Grand Canyon, attempts were made to reoccupy the photographic sites in
Grand Canyon used by Powell 100 years earlier. The results were unexpected. In
about seventy percent of the cases, the sites, mostly at river level, appeared
virtually unchanged. In photographic sites where changes from the original
photographs were observed, the environment nearly always appeared
catastrophically altered. Gradually, geologists confronted with the absurdity
of strict Lyellian uniformitarianism rejected it. But
they were unwilling to be called ‘catastrophists’, a phrase too closely linked
with the flood of Noah for the comfort of most. As a result, geologists
reworked a related phrase, actualism. The modern concept of actualism rejects
the strict Lyellian uniformitarianism and in its
place acknowledges two specific premises: geologic processes have varied in
rates and intensities over time, and there have been many processes operative
in the past that are not occurring in the present. Lyell's uniformitarianism
was not all bad. It contained some good ideas and some that have not held up.
His idea that ancient geological processes followed the same laws of nature
that we observe today (water did not flow uphill in the past) is still a valid
concept. What has been rejected is his belief that geological processes would
always be slow and gradual. Unfortunately, with the rejection of strict
uniformitarianism, geology also lost its most important scientific tool. As
long as the present could represent the past, there was hope that with careful
and protracted investigation of present processes, we could unravel the past.
With actualism, present conditions may not pertain to the past, and conditions
vastly different from those operating today may have formed rocks and affected
life on the earth. Actualism provides little basis for anticipating that
geology will ever be a rigorous science in the sense of chemistry or physics,
but it does offer opportunities for creative and critical minds to reevaluate
the wisdom of the past, and to posit processes perhaps radically different from
conventional wisdom, with different explanatory values.
Time: An
understanding of time is of great importance to the geologist. Geologists
obtain estimates for the passage of time from two distinctly different sources.
So-called ‘absolute’ radiometric dates
are derived from the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes in igneous
(volcanic or molten) rocks. Although the underlying theoretical basis for
‘absolute’ or radiometric dating appears to be sound, there are some troubling
issues arising from its application that are yet to be resolved. For example, a
recent careful study based on zircon crystals in basalts (lavas) from cores
taken nearest the Mid-Atlantic Ridge yielded uranium-lead dates ranging from
330 million to 1.6 billion years in rocks expected to give dates of at most a
few thousand years. The authors had no coherent explanation for the anomalous
dates. Furthermore, the uranium decay series itself exhibits some curious
properties. In the series, a number of isotope pairs can be used for dating.
However, the different pairs nearly always give different dates for the same
rocks, and these differences themselves appear to be systematic. Numerous other
anomalies exist, but these are still exceptions to the overall apparently
coherent pattern of radiometric dates in the geologic record.
‘Relative’ dates are derived from the relative distribution of fossils
in sedimentary rocks, the study of which is known as biostratigraphy.
Dating by biostratigraphy allows temporal horizons to
be traced over long distances, given certain assumptions. Relative dates can be
associated with radiometric dates when biostratigraphic zones are underlain or
overlain by datable igneous rocks. Once such an association is established, the
biostratigraphic horizon is assumed to carry that date wherever it occurs.
Unfortunately, a sort of geochronological uncertainty principle often applies,
since suitable igneous rocks are often absent from regions where good biostratigraphy is available.
Sedimentary deposits can provide evidence for the relative time
required for deposition. Careful analysis of sediments may reveal evidence for
the passage of little time, even during accumulation of vast thicknesses of
sediment. In other cases, the passage of large amounts of radiometric and/or
biostratigraphic time has left an almost imperceptible impact on the rock
record. These data present challenges for both radiometric and biostratigraphic
dates. There are significant opportunities for careful, open-minded examination
of all of the evidence for the passage of time.
Origin of Life. Without doubt, the present scientific endeavours focused on understanding the origin of life on
this planet in naturalistic terms constitute one of the greatest frustrations
in science. The studies have been particularly frustrating because as time has
lapsed, and the database has expanded, the objective of understanding the
origin of life in naturalistic terms has become increasingly elusive. This is
opposite of the expected outcome. For example, it has recently come to light
that the progenitor(s) of all modern forms of life contain the same complement
of enzymes for producing energy in an oxygenating environment. It was formerly
believed that the first living organisms arose in an anaerobic environment and
that the ability to utilize oxygen arose much later. This and many other recent
observations make even more remote the possibility for a period of earth
history when oxygen was absent or rare. It is virtually certain that the
required perecursors for life could not have arisen
in the presence of free oxygen. This is an area of science particularly ripe
for some fresh insights. See this NASA
lecture for a recent update on the state of Origin of Life research.
Cambrian Explosion. Within Lower Cambrian strata (the first layers of
rock containing the remains of complex multicellular animals),
representatives of nearly all of the modern phyla of living organisms are
found. This phenomenon is so marked and unexpected in the naturalistic
evolutionary paradigm that it has been widely referred to as the "Cambrian
Explosion." Various authors have used adjectives such as "riotous
diversification" or "sudden and abrupt appearance" to describe
the state of biological diversity found in these rocks. Other authors have gone
to great lengths to deny the significance or the explosive nature of the
Cambrian record, having no ready explanation for the phenomenon. The explosion
is real. The underlying Precambrian rocks are often similar rock types, such as
sandstone or shale, but are devoid of multicellular
animal fossils. This dramatic change cannot be accommodated in any naturalistic
model, because it involves not only the appearance of multitudes of life forms
representing nearly every modern phylum, but more pointedly, it involves the
appearance of virtually all of the molecular
biological complexity present in modern forms. Contemporary evolutionary
models are unable to account for the origin of this diversity and information
without invoking principles outside of the domain of science. Naturalistic
evolutionists repeatedly acknowledge this condition, without offering a viable
alternative. Here, perhaps more than in any other area in geology, there is a
pressing need for innovative research and creative suggestions.
Origin of other life forms. When lesser taxonomic categories (class, order,
family, genus) down to the species level make their appearance, wherever that
may be in the fossil record, these forms nearly always appear suddenly, without
the transitional intermediate forms required and predicted by the evolutionary
paradigm. In Darwin’s day and beyond, these so-called "gaps" were
inferred to be due to inadequacy of our knowledge of the fossil record. One hundred
and fifty years later this argument can no longer be offered as an explanation
for the scarcity of intermediates. Some groups can be interpreted as
intermediate forms, such as the early whales with back limbs, the Triassic
fossils with mammal and reptile characteristics, etc. However, these exceptions
do not change the overall pattern of lack of intermediates between forms.
Paleontologists who knew the fossil record and its inadequacies well proposed
the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium as an alternative to gradualistic
evolution of species. The theory acknowledges and seeks to capitalize on two
features of the fossil record: the absence of intermediate or bridging fossils
between species (i.e. they appear 'suddenly'), and the seeming stasis of species
once they make their appearance (i.e. once they appear, they don't change).
Although the theory is good at describing what is seen in the fossil record, it
offers no legitimate explanation for the observations. There is a critical need
for a coherent theory that will not only describe what is observed, but will
yield logical and consistent explanations for the data.
Creation-Evolution controversy. There
can be no doubt that geologists and especially paleontologists, are concerned
about origins. The possibility that some theory other than naturalistic
evolution may be the correct explanation for the origin and development of life
on the earth is a matter of serious concern to geoscientists, who may have
built careers around naturalistic evolutionary assumptions. Generally, these
scientists have been able to deflect the impact of creationists, who have
tended to be poorly informed about paleontology and geology. There is much
concern, some of it legitimate, among professional geologists and
paleontologists that creationists might negatively influence the already
inadequate science education of our youth. More recently, a small number of
well-informed and well-trained active scientists who are creationists have
completed professional training in the disciplines of geology or paleontology.
These creationists are not so easily dismissed, but their numbers at present
are so small that they are more a curiosity than a threat to the current model
of origins. The debate over origins will continue to generate great interest
and controversy until a new theory is developed that better accommodates the
data of science, particularly with respect to biological organisms.
Areas where Christian perspective makes a
difference in earth sciences.
Scripture as a primary source of
inspiration. Since the 'Enlightenment', Scripture has repeatedly
been subordinated to science when conflicts have arisen between the ideas of
science and those of religion. The scientist declares the world to be billions
of years old, and the theologian adjusts his or her interpretation of Genesis.
The scientist declares there was never a global catastrophic flood, and the
theologian again adjusts Genesis. The scientist declares man to be a product of
mindless evolution, arisen by tooth and claw, and again the theologian adjusts
the interpretation of scripture to accommodate. There is no conflict between
science and Scripture, so long as the theologians can continue to adjust the
interpretations to keep up with the science. Is this what God had in mind when
He communicated with man through His Word? Unless we hold to a high view of
inspiration, we are left with nothing but chaff. Stephen Gould recently
expressed his perspective by proclaiming that religion and science occupy separate
and independent domains that do not overlap. He used the term
"non-overlapping magisteria," inferring
that both have domains of understanding in which they properly have dominion,
but these domains are mutually exclusive. Religion has nothing to say about
science, and science has nothing to say about religion. But in seeking to build
his case, Gould demonstrates its weakness when he calls upon religion to do all
of the accommodating to the teachings of science. We must recognize and
appreciate the unity of Truth and the importance of revealed truth to our
understanding of the world. The integrity of Scripture, which believers
acknowledge as the revealed will of God, must not be surrendered in seeking
harmony with natural science or any other subject.
An openness to new ideas. Each individual develops a basis for his or her
philosophy by accepting as 'givens' certain premises about the world and
existence. The basis for these premises for the Christian is, among other
things, the Word of God. For the secularist the basis may lie in some other
authority. While one cannot begin without premises, we can be careful and
thoughtful about the premises we accept. The Christian, no less than the
secularist, must continue to test and review these fundamental beliefs from
time to time, and should constantly seek to enlarge that domain. There is great
danger in feeling that one has encompassed all Truth. It is one of life's
paradoxes that those who believe they have arrived at Truth, lose all chance
for obtaining it, for it is in the continued pursuit of Truth that new
possibilities are encountered and a philosophical base is broadened and
strengthened. The Christian, with a strong commitment to this pursuit, should,
even more than the naturalist or secularist, seek to maintain a mind open to
new possibilities and explanations of the natural world that might be
unthinkable to the secularist. Our philosophy determines to a large degree what
questions we can ask. The Christian community asks different questions than the
secular community, and as a result may go in directions the secular community
would not. In the case of the history of the earth, the Christian has freedom
to explore possibilities that the secularist cannot see, as a result of
insights gained in the exploration of God's Word. This should be seen and
exploited as a great advantage.
A fundamental belief in the Creatorship of
God. Regardless of how one may choose to read Genesis, a
belief in God as the Creator is fundamental to the Judeo-Christian worldview.
Scripture distinctly and repeatedly associates the Creatorship of God with His
worship. The reason we worship God is because He created us and we are indebted
to Him for our existence. False gods were false because they could not create,
and because they claimed that ability without substance. Isaiah 44 (14-21) is a
polemic against this. The connection between God's Creatorship and His worship
is emphasized in many places in Scripture (cf. Rev 4:11, Romans 1:20-25, Eph
3:9,14). To disallow God as Creator is to disallow
God. More importantly to the scientific enterprise, God as Creator and Designer
is the most viable and rational explanation for the origin of life and for the
origin of information in living organisms. It is good science and good sense to
work within this framework.
Honesty and integrity. The
Christian geoscientist will bring honesty and integrity to his or her work.
This is not an option for the Christian. This includes honesty in financial
matters, both personal and corporate, and integrity in dealing with danger,
dishonesty or potentially hazardous situations in the workplace. Furthermore,
the Christian scientist will deal honestly with data,
and will give careful consideration to possible alternative explanations and
theories, realizing that one's paradigm can and does affect the conclusions one
reaches. The science done by Christian geoscientists will be of the
highest quality and integrity.
Stewardship of the earth. Christians
are stewards of the earth and have responsibility for caring for it.
Unfortunately we have too often been accused of malfeasance in this regard, and
often with cause. The Christian geoscientist will have in mind the preservation
of the resources of the earth and will pursue policies of conservation, in the
best sense of the word.
Areas of particular concern to the Christian
Earth Scientist.
Naturalism. Naturalism
is a philosophical/religious system proposing that everything that exists can
be explained in natural terms (as opposed to supernatural terms) without the
intervention or need for intervention of a supernatural being. Methodological
naturalism is an adoption of naturalistic principles, with or without fully
subscribing to naturalism, for the purpose of carrying out scientific
investigations. Science has often been characterized as a naturalistic
enterprise, an activity that uses the tools of methodological naturalism
exclusively. Because of the unparalleled success of science in western society,
the prevalent methodology of naturalism has achieved great status. Naturalism
has not, however been confined to science. Theologians have seemed almost eager
to embrace the methods and philosophy of naturalism, without regard to the
consequences. If all of Scripture can be explained without recourse to Divine
intervention, then what significance do Scriptures have? The results of
embracing naturalism have been devastating to the Church, weakening
understanding of the nature and meaning of inspiration. If the books of the
Bible are not a revelation of the intervention and involvement of God in the
affairs of men, but are merely man's feeble efforts to create a deity,
Christianity is a farce. Many have no awareness of how dangerous or pervasive
naturalism is in the Church. Naturalism is an intentionally atheistic
philosophy antithetical to the fundamental values of Christianity and it has no
business whatsoever in the Church. The application of the principles of
naturalism to our understanding of Scripture leaves us without a clue to the
answers of the really important questions in life: Where did we come from? Why
are we here? Where are we going?
Because of the success of methodological naturalism in solving
scientific problems, its weaknesses have largely been overlooked. Science
claims to be an open-ended search for Truth. But if Truth lies outside the
realm of naturalistic explanations, science can never reach Truth so long as
the only methodology is naturalistic. For some this is irrelevant because they
have made naturalism the end of science. But for those fair-minded individuals
for whom Truth is more important than a strict adherence to naturalism, science
should be defined with breadth to accommodate other possibilities.
Methodological naturalism cannot hope to provide answers to some problems,
particularly in science dealing with origins. Presently there is no
satisfactory explanation for the origin of life, or for the origin of the
information content of organisms, within the realm of methodological
naturalism. This makes it necessary for naturalists to bend logic in an effort
to accommodate data that cannot be explained within the tenets of naturalism.
Adhering exclusively to methodological naturalism also stifles inquiry by
prohibiting investigation not only of those areas where science cannot
adequately explain observations, but also in areas in which the Scriptures
suggest God has intervened in man's affairs.
Naturalistic evolution. The
application of the principles of naturalism to the fossil record leaves only
one reading possible: All organisms alive on the earth today or preserved as fossils, are the result of the impersonal, mindless, amoral
process of evolution. There was no Creator, no Information Provider, no
Designer, only chance and time. This view has, in various permutations, made
its way into the Church, again with perilous consequences. It is inevitably
accompanied by a loss in confidence in Scripture and a more or less impersonal
view of God. The crafters and promoters of the naturalistic views recognize
full well the significance of their position: Whether there is or is not a
Divine Being, one was not necessary for the origin or development of life.
Within the Church, purely naturalistic evolution may be palliated with theism,
or some other form of non-random evolution, but this position is a compromise
that will ultimately lead to a less personal view of God.
A proscribed view of earth history.
Geologists tend to have a very proscribed view of
earth history. Certain perspectives are allowed, but many others are
disallowed. Christians within the community who might like to explore new ideas
such as the concept of Intelligent Design within the geologic record, or the
possibility of a global catastrophe, are discouraged
from doing so. As a consequence, geoscientists who are Christians can
themselves be intolerant of new ideas, perhaps because they feel vulnerable or
have a desire to conform. Christian geoscientists tend not to like to discuss
their Christianity with colleagues, except on a spiritual level. A sharp
separation sometimes exists between geologists and their Christian faith.
Christian colleagues in geology have confessed that they deal with the
conflicts by doing their geology during the week and their religion on Sunday.
Thus possible alternatives to the conventional views are sometimes not given
careful consideration, even by Christians. This lack of openness is
regrettable.
The "Yahoo" problem. Perhaps
at the other extreme, but fully as dangerous as the inroads of naturalism in
the church, are the uses of unsupported assertions by well-meaning,
enthusiastic, but uninformed Christians who make extravagant claims
"disproving" conventional theories of geology and paleontology. Gould
has referred to such individuals as "Yahoos". These individuals and
their claims constitute one of the most problematic concerns for the
professional geologist, and are a large factor in discouraging many geologists
and other scientists from taking a closer look at Christianity. Claims of
"giant fossil men", "dinosaur and human tracks", "out
of order fossils" and many other unsupported assertions are a positive
hindrance to the exploration of alternatives to conventional views, and are
responsible for the loss of faith and discouragement of many. It is the
responsibility of Christians to prevent outrageous and unsubstantiated claims
from being used in "support" of Christianity. Our search for Truth is
not helped by assertions, however sincere, that are false or pretentious.
Approaches
I have taken to integrate my faith with my scientific discipline.
When I chose graduate studies
in molecular biology, it was because, as a new Christian, I was interested in
understanding better the concepts involved in Darwinian evolution. I thought an
understanding of molecular biology would facilitate this. When I had completed
my studies, I was somewhat surprised to realize that molecular biology was
antithetical to Darwinian evolution. I thought that perhaps in my quest to
understand the meaning of Genesis in terms of my new-found faith, I should look
into geology, since it was now clear to me that geology must provide the
support for evolution that was missing from my studies of molecular biology. I
began studies in geology that have developed into a life-long pursuit of
understanding of the Genesis account of origins.
I had set out nearly as
soon as I had finished my degree program, to investigate several bold claims
made by Christians with respect to the history of the earth. One of the
prominent claims was that modern types of pollen could be recovered from
Precambrian rocks in the Grand Canyon, demonstrating that the geological column
was meaningless, and that modern plants were on the earth in the region of
Grand Canyon during the Precambrian. The Bible was right, geologists were
wrong. Thinking that such claims, if true, ought to be established with
scientific rigor, I set up a palynology lab under stringent conditions to test
the assertions. The rocks were recovered with exceptional care (we packed a
gasoline powered diamond core drill down into the Canyon and back in order to
assure uncontaminated samples!). The samples were processed under the most
stringent conditions. After several years work, we concluded that the original
claims were not substantiated. I published the
results and was branded as an evolutionist by some of my fellow Christians,
because my data did not support their contentions.
Along with a couple of
colleagues, I next traveled to Glen Rose, Texas. The Paluxy
River in Glen Rose reportedly contained human and dinosaur tracks side-by-side.
These reports were being used widely as evidence to support the coexistence of
humans and dinosaurs, which according to conventional geology were separated in
time by 100 million years. Thus the Bible was right, the geologists were wrong.
We concluded that if there were such tracks in the riverbed, it should be
relatively easy to settle the matter. We arrived in late summer when the river
was dry, and carefully analyzed the exposed trackways
for evidence that human tracks were present alongside those of dinosaurs. We
found the expected dinosaur tracks and a trackway
composed of curious elongated tracks made by a dinosaur walking on its
anklebones. The trackway did superficially resemble
an elongate 'human' track. But occasionally the trackway
showed all three of the dinosaur's toes. We also analyzed "human
tracks" reported to have been removed from the riverbed, and compared the
characteristics of these "tracks" with a genuine dinosaur track taken
from the riverbed. We concluded on the basis of several lines of evidence that
the "human tracks" were all carvings. The hypothesis that the trackways were human was falsified. We published the
results, but for ten years those Christian colleagues using the trackways to promote their views on origins ignored our
results.
Other cases could be cited.
In every case we investigated, the evidence being used to promote the validity
of the Bible was either being misrepresented or was absent altogether. This
could have discouraged us. Instead, it led us to recognize and avoid the pitfalls
of those who wished to use the prestige of science without understanding the
methodology of science. Christians trained as scientists can be good scientists
and can use the methods of science to investigate whatever they wish,
irrespective of their views on origins. They can even investigate the validity
of hypotheses derived from Scripture, using the methods of science, so long as
experiments can be done to differentiate among the possible outcomes. Christian
scientists should be at the forefront in promoting careful work and publication
in peer-reviewed journals. But what Christian scientists cannot do is
depreciate science or scientific research while attempting to use science to
defend their Scriptural views. They cannot have it both ways. If methodological
naturalism is not valid for studying God (and it is not), neither can it be a
valid method for defending Him.
We then focused our
attention on the use of hypotheses, derived from our understanding of
scripture, that we felt would give us unique insights into scientific issues
related to origins. Our approach has been a rewarding one. In every case we
have investigated to date, we have been able to propose a testable hypothesis
consistent with our understanding of scripture. We have carried out the
necessary research to uncover the data, and have found data to be consistent
with our hypotheses. We have then published the results in peer-reviewed
scientific journals. Our efforts have not been directed toward 'proving'
anything we think the Bible says to be true. Rather we have focused on
attempting to identify information in Scripture that might offer unique
insights into problems in the natural world. In science an idea is a good idea,
not because of where it came from, but because it correctly predicts the
outcome of experiments in advance. On this basis, we believe our methodology
has worked exceedingly well. A possible consequence of this success might be
that other scientists are attracted to our model for doing science. That, in my
opinion, would not be bad.