September 5, GHCA meeting and webinar

Theories about how the Genesis Flood physically happened are highly intriguing and often controversial. Their change over time also demonstrates the forward progress of creation science. The following provides some important context for our presentations.

One broad approach is used by those who want to attribute everything possible to natural processes that are observed in the present and minimize the supernatural activities of God throughout the creation and Flood narratives. This philosophy leans toward uniformitarianism. This philosophy suggests that the “present is the key to the past” and leads to “old Earth” evolutionary timeframes. Most of academia insists on a uniformitarian viewpoint. However, GHCA will present some of the many physical facts and reasons contrary to this uniformitarian approach.

The Flood narrative begins in Chapter 6 around 1500 years after the creation, fall and expulsion from Eden. God then tells Noah what God is going to do and why. Chapter 7 and 8 relate the rise and subsidence of the Flood. Ch 9 concerns the new Rainbow Covenant from God. Ch 10 is the section of genealogy known as the table of nations. Then Ch 11 starts the history of Abraham.

Building a physical model of what happened in the Flood is not easy. We commonly assume that the physics we observe now was in operation during the Flood. However, we do not intend to presume that God did not do anything by His supernatural power where scripture indicates He did. It is also important for a Flood theory to propose a set of initial conditions at the beginning of the Flood. Then the Flood theory processes would convert the initial conditions into the end of Flood conditions. The GHCA article The Biblical Flood discusses a number of issues that a Flood model must take into account.

The Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) will be presented at the July GHCA meeting. CPT has the largest following today because it is most consistent with modern geological observations, particularly tomographic studies of the Earth’s interior structure.

The Canopy Theory (CT) was popular during the early part of the modern creation science movement, during the 1960s and 1970s. This theory has since been rejected by most because of valid scientific objections that were raised. However, I am sometimes surprised how many people were once impressed with CT but have not kept up with the progress of creation science. This theory will be briefly discussed in the first part of the August GHCA meeting. 

A roundtable discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these three theories will be presented in the second half of the August meeting. The roundtable members will be invited to participate in person or online as a panelist. Those who are interested in being a roundtable panelist should contact me by reply to this email.