FROZEN IN TIME

 

Frozen in Time

A recent discovery in the Grand Canyon highlights a particularly polarizing subject for many who still cling to the veracity of the biblical narrative, and those who reject its claims in favor of modern science. Near a well-worn path where many visitors pass, a collapsing cliff has deposited a sandstone boulder, which split apart upon impact. A science professor passing through with his class one day, noticed the new deposits near the trail, and upon investigation, discovered the fossilized tracks of a giant salamander-like creature, alleged to have existed before the dinosaurs, sandwiched in between the two boulder halves.

After two years of studying the footprints, the scientists came “…to the conclusion that incredibly, they were around 313 million years old! This means that they originated from the Carboniferous Period. The prints also broke records and are believed to be the oldest fossilized vertebrate footprints ever discovered at the Grand Canyon…” (Sawa, 2020) In a comparable discovery of a dinosaur fossil, whose body was perfectly preserved in a running position lodged in a hillside, again, the fantastical claims are compelling. They found “…two exposed fossils, a foot and part of a tail clad in fossilized skin, …believed to belong to a juvenile duck-billed Hadrosaur dinosaur that died somewhere between 77 million to 75 million years ago, roughly 10 million years before dinosaurs went extinct…” (Mayorquin, 2022).

Again, to those who reject the biblical narrative in favor of modern scientific theory, these statements are accepted out of hand with no further proof needed. However, to the critically thinking student of Scripture, who believes that running animals frozen in time by means of fossilization, and the rock strata of the Grand Canyon are themselves, prime examples of the catastrophic residue left behind in the wake of a biblical world-wide flood; it raises many interpretive red flags and more questions than it answers. The theoretical principle of uniformitarianism, which of course is what guided these scientists to the textbook assessments of their findings, asserts that, “…sedimentary rock strata are formed by the natural, slow settling of particles in water over several million years.” (MacArthur, 2010) Charles Lyell, the founder of this principle, insisted that all the “…features of earth’s geology must be explainable by natural, rather than supernatural, processes and regarded all biblical or supernatural explanations as inherently unscientific and therefore false. He began with the presupposition that Scripture itself is untrue and essentially canonized atheistic naturalism as the basis for "scientific" research.” (MacArthur, 2010) So, the hypothesis from which they framed their research was flawed from the beginning and produced a similar, but predictably wrong conclusion, both of which are unscientific to the core. While attempting to shore up a crumbling cliff of theoretical constructs, which they did very well, they ignored a mountain of rock-solid evidence in the process.

This stark contrast in interpretive methods serves to inform the way in which I process scientific data. As was pointed out in the first paper, I view the true application of science, not based as much upon the facts themselves, (true scientific facts are just that, true science), but rather the interpretation and meaning behind those facts. In other words, what are the ideological presuppositions that are attached to them? Are the researchers willing to accept dissenting viewpoints or alternative data, and are an honest and balanced explanation of those facts also incorporated into the body of evidence presented, or are they discarded because they don’t fit a preconceived narrative and hypothesis? What are the defining overarching principles adhered to by the scientists who conceived of this hypothesis? What about the institutions and the organizations who are funding this research? What are their motivations and ideological assumptions? Are they pushing a political, social, or scientism agenda, or are they truly concerned with genuine scientific study? Sadly, I’ve seen a lot of Christian organizations succumbing to these less than scientific approaches recently and arriving at the same conclusions of their secular counterparts.

While claiming to still believe in the veracity of the Bible, they deny the account of the deluge of Noah stating, “The scientific and historical evidence is now clear: there has never been a global flood that covered the entire earth, nor do all modern animals and humans descend from Noah’s Ark.” (Biologos, 2022). To support this idea and still maintain the scriptural inspiration principle, they propose a methodology by which to reconcile the discoveries in God’s world which appear to conflict with interpretations of God’s Word. They prescribe the following three options for Christians to choose from, the 3rd being their recommendation of choice: 1) Abandon your faith and just blindly accept the results of science. 2) Deny all scientific evidence while maintaining your biblical interpretations. 3) Reinterpret Scripture based purely on the scientific data. To this flawed logic, I propose a 4th methodology, of which I would consider to be the scriptural means of resolving such conflicts, i.e., 4) Consider alternate interpretations of scientific evidence in light of literal interpretations of biblical authority and revealed truth.

Case in point: if I were to set out upon a scientific journey of discovery to prove that, indeed the earth was once covered by a massive flood that destroyed all life upon it, just as Scripture declares, I may start with the following premise: Question: Is there compelling scientific evidence to support the biblical concept of a world-wide deluge which destroyed all life on earth, and refutes the commonly accepted models of the age and origins of our earth. I would further hypothesize that: Sedimentary rock stratification, fossilized animals, and biological life forms encased in rock formations, are more scientifically explicated by the rapid entombment of catastrophic flash flooding and subsequent mud slides, runoff, and sedimentary deposition than the traditional uniformitarian theory of gradual sedimentation and erosion. This would be demonstrably proven by examining the literally trillions of fossils found encased in historical flood deposits around the world, in contrast with the fact that fossils do not form naturally today. When animals perish today, we may observe that the processes of decay, decomposition, predatory feeding, and atmospheric exposure, quickly disposes of their bodies and no chance for fossilization occurs. In contrast however, how else can we “…explain the existence of massive fossil beds (like the Karoo formation fossil field in Africa) which is thought to hold eight hundred billion vertebrate fossils)? Natural sedimentation over several ages cannot explain how so many fossils came to be concentrated in one place.” (MacArthur, 2010), nor can it explain the phenomenon of polystrate fossils which extend through millions and in some cases billions of years of supposed evolutionary stratification.

Perhaps, this is what ultimately happens when we assume that the “…scientific process can be stripped from the content being investigated and summarized… …that decontextualized accounts overlook the guiding role and interpretive nature of scientific theory…” (Coffey, 2010) It would seem that for convenience and the sake of scientific soundbites, this has happened far too often. 

Pastor Glen Mustian

Works Cited:

Biologos. How Should we Interpret the Genesis Flood Account? Biologos.com. 2022.

Coffey et al. The Scientific Method & Scientific Inquiry; Tensions in Teaching & Learning. 2010.

MacArthur, John. Uniformitarianism. Grace To You. https://www.gty.org/library/blog/. 2010.

Mayorquin, Orlando. Dinosaur Mummy. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world. 2022.

Sawa, Jackson. Scientists Made an Incredible Discovery When a Cliff Collapsed In The Grand Canyon. https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas. 2020.