Gorman Gray has just published an ebook defending Flood Geology. It is made available here for the review and consideration of the Christian apologetics community.

The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth – Challenged

A book Review and Response

By Gorman Gray

Author of The Age of the Universe: What are the Biblical Limits?

Reviewed book data:

The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth

by Gregg Davidson, Joel Duff, David Elliot, Tim Helble,Carol Hill, Stephen Moshier, Wayne Ranney, Ralph Stearley, Bryan Tapp, Roger Wiens & Ken Wolgemuth

Published by Kregel, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2016

The book, The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, has one singular purpose: To invalidate “flood geology” as promoted by Young Earth Creationists (YEC). It asks the question: Can Noah’s flood explain the Grand Canyon? A host of lettered experts in the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, hydrology and related disciplines are among the authors (henceforth “the authors”). It is certainly a beautifully bound book with exceptional photos and illustrations and the authors are persuasive in their pursuit. They discuss the two opposing views on flood geology, how geology works, the story fossils tell, how the Grand Canyon was carved, and they bring a verdict of “no” to flood geology.

This review presents mostly negative observations with simple, answers to some of the questions raised. We will make complaints against the geological basis claimed by the authors, but particularly, a strong objection to the theological assumptions made and the reckless abuse of Scripture. This work has become a polemic more than a book review.

So I will argue against the themes of this anti-flood book but from a young biosphere view, not from a young earth / young universe view. Hence we will also object to a dogmatic young planet earth and a dogmatic young universe by young earth creationists. Both are undefined in age biblically. It is the biosphere only that is defined at less than 7000 years old. I will not make a biblical defense of YBC, the young biosphere creation view of Genesis, at this point but it constrains much of my reasoning in this paper.

The Bible will be shown to be literally true and it will color all of our conclusions. I will show that it makes the most sense geologically with every objection suggested by the authors easily dismissed by rational thought and factual science and which harmonizes beautifully with Scripture. Theology will help to understand the geology.

Because the authors make a feeble attempt to discuss biblical texts (See page 28-29) therefore, I will focus my response appropriate to that, with a defense of the Bible as it relates to flood geology.

After establishing firmly that the authors work has no biblical foundation for their view as they claim, I will offer corrections to common misconceptions by all parties (including YEC’s) regarding Noah’s global flood.

Listed they are:

#1 The fountains of the great deep do not refer to water fountains but to flood basalts of lava and volcanoes worldwide. #2. Young Earth Creationists, who are the specific target of the anti-flood book, are found with a very vulnerable weakness of that group. Bible believers must NOT insist that the stellar universe and the sterile planet earth are only 7000 years old. The Bible does define the age of the biosphere (living things and a home for living things) as less than 7000 years old, but the planet earth before the six day creation of life and the universe are not defined in date.  #3 The Bible explains the cause of the flood to be the sinking of the entire continent until everything was covered with water by at least 20 feet. In the course of one flood year, geologic conditions of all kinds, raging torrents, hot bright sunshine and the consequences of asteroidal impacts existed simultaneously in various places as the flood progressed. #4 Isotope dates by the authors might have limited credibility for some Precambrian geology but none at all for strata containing any life. #5 Conclusive, factual destruction of any possibility of evolution, theistic or atheistic, is obvious from created life. #6 Intellectual embarrassments in the past should warn us who dogmatize prematurely. #7 Answers are given to some of the complaints the authors make against flood geology.

We begin with the authors’ claims that “flood geology” is not biblical and they propose biblical arguments against flood geology (p 25 last sentence). They insist that the flood was local over just the human population. One wonders why build an ark if Noah could simply collect animals above the flood maximum. They say that the words of Genesis can be “interpreted differently” and they accuse flood believers of “a selectively literal reading of Genesis.” They say that “waters covered the mountains” from usages elsewhere in O.T. could mean “drenched” (examples not refer­enced). “Above the mountains to a depth of· twenty feet” could mean “against the mountains” instead of over them (p26-27) again no supporting references supplied).

If it were not so tragic it would be laughable to accuse young earth creationists of making a “selectively literal reading of Genesis” when those critics are themselves the worst offenders. They force very plain language into interpretations far past the literal meaning to an invented meaning to support their agenda and far from the obvious textual meaning. Their accusation may truly apply to some creationists but it surely applies much more to themselves.

I do not speak disrespectfully or vindictively but with compassion and understanding because I have made serious mistakes myself.

I acknowledge at the outset, that young earth creationists are all wrong about any questions that relate to the age of the universe, the age of planet earth or to isotope dating. That is a given for this writing. The universe could be old enough for light to arrive from distant galaxies and planet earth could be old enough to account for radioiso­tope dates, at least in theory for some applications, but the authors and their evolutionist colleagues in the academic world have made some serious mis­taken assumptions regarding isotope dating.

I will supply adequate geology shortly but first, I include five translations of the disputed texts in Genesis, all created by Hebrew experts, plus a list of 26 other English translations, all which give essentially the same unmistakable description of the flood waters.

Continue reading the full PDF booklet here: The Grand Canyon bk Review – Gray

To comment on this book review, please use our contact form