Mount St Helens: Witness for a Biblical World View
Posted by DuaneMay 18
[image removed pending permission from ICR]
Today is the 30th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens. But what has that got to do with a blog dedicated to defending a Christian world view? Well, quite a lot actually.
On May 18, 1980 when Mount St. Helens in Washington State erupted, melted snow mixed with the volcanic debris and formed huge mud flows. The flows reached speeds of 90mph, picked up sediment and rock, and, in addition to the original steam explosion, devastated a huge area, including some 150 square miles of forest in only six minutes!
These mud flows laid down enormous amounts of sediment, covering the area like a stack of pancakes, and resulting in a sediment pile up to 600-feet think in places. In some areas, thousands of individual layers formed within those sediments.
Then another eruption occurred on March 19, 1982, which created even more mud flows. They eroded large canyons as they scoured the countryside. One of these canyons is now called the “Little Grand Canyon,” and is almost like a smaller model of the Grand Canyon in Arizona. This new canyon even has side canyons, carved by catastrophic water and mud actions.
Catastrophism was a meaningful way of trying to interpret the strata in the early days of geology and this is well attested by the likes of Dr. Terry Mortensen in his writings on the scriptural geologists of the 19th century. However the uniformitarian view of geology popularized by Charles Lyell (and now becoming less popular in the midst of the “second coming” of catastrophism) compelled us to understand that the Colorado river carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. Yet the canyons that resulted from the eruption of Mount St. Helens were witnessed to form in mere hours. As the caption in an image from this article says, “… the stream did not form the canyon, the canyon came first and is responsible for the stream being there!” So perhaps the Grand Canyon formed in a similar fashion?
In fact, Creation scientists believe the Grand Canyon was formed in a similar fashion, probably carved out by the drainage of the enormous lakes that formed after the worldwide catastrophic flood and volcanic upheavals of Noah’s day (Gen 6-8).
See, it doesn’t take long for layered sediments or canyons to form from sediments, as proven by the Mount St. Helens eruption. It just takes the right conditions. Mount St. Helens demonstrated what creationists had been saying for centuries. Not only is Noah’s flood an historical event, but it is a plausible way (the best way?) to understand the geological record.
[Main reference: Answers in Genesis Flood Card Set]
Further reading:
Aren’t Millions of Years Required for Geological Processes?
‘I got excited at Mount St Helens!’
PDF 
12 comments
Comment by Duane on 18 May 2010 at 09:30
Note, there are of course theological points to be made here and I plan to add those in a later revision, or expand on them here as the opportunity presents itself.
Namely, that the flood is evidence of a God who judges sin and that this is the same One who will return to judge the living and the dead. In this way, if people are at all convinced (or even curious) about the way that the Bible can be shown to be trustworthy or tie in with the real world, it may be an opportunity to tell them about Christ?
That is, Mount St Helens can be used as a witnessing tool, which I think is kinda cool. :)
Comment by Rick Baskett on 18 May 2010 at 12:05
Walter Veith is one of my favorite speakers on this topic, you can read one of his articles here:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-ChanceOrDesign...
At the bottom is a link to a flood article he wrote also. The video he did of this is pretty awesome :)
Comment by Duane on 18 May 2010 at 12:16
Tav: “What creation scientists believe and what actually occurred are two very different things.”
Interesting that you would begin your response this way, given that this in itself is a claim that bears the burden of proof.
Tav: “Do you have any evidence at all … other than speculation and making an analogy of an unrelated event?”
Well obviously as a Christian I think the Bible counts as an authority on historical matters on which it speaks, whether it be global floods or dead men rising. Personally, I don't think that testimony from the God of the universe can be bested, and if you agreed that the source of the information in the Bible was in fact from God then I guess we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?
But the comparison with Mount St. Helens is relevant because it demonstrates the reasonableness of the account in Genesis and that the geological record makes sense if we look at it within this framework; being that it is a virtual minature version of the Grand Canyon it can act as a model for testing creation scientists theories. And actually if you look up the work by Steve Austin, you will see that Mount St. Helens did exactly that!
Remember, uniformitarianism was dogmatically taught in geology for a long time. Lyell insisted that the geological features of the earth must be explained by slow gradual processes of erosion, sedimentation, earthquakes and volcanism operating at essentially the same rate and power as we observe today. That rules out global floods a priori.
In good faith, I encourage you to read the links I provided in the article for “further reading” for background that I don't have time to provide and would probably not be able to explain anywhere near as well.
Comment by tavarish on 18 May 2010 at 14:54
Duane,
1. “Interesting that you would begin your response this way, given that this in itself is a claim that bears the burden of proof.”
I'll be sure to refute every single one of your assertions in my blog, then shoot you an email, since I'm at work right now and can't recall specifics about Mt. St. Helens offhand. Would that be acceptable?
2. “Well obviously as a Christian I think the Bible counts as an authority on historical matters on which it speaks, whether it be global floods or dead men rising. Personally, I don't think that testimony from the God of the universe can be bested, and if you agreed that the source of the information in the Bible was in fact from God then I guess we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? “
It's not obvious that as a Christian, you would believe the bible to be historically accurate. Many Christians believe the Bible to be mainly allegorical and a metaphor to God's nature, rather than events that truly took place.
3. “But the comparison with Mount St. Helens is relevant because it demonstrates the reasonableness of the account in Genesis and that the geological record makes sense if we look at it within this framework; being that it is a virtual minature version of the Grand Canyon it can act as a model for testing creation scientists theories. And actually if you look up the work by Steve Austin, you will see that Mount St. Helens did exactly that!”
Demonstrating reasonableness sounds like confirmation bias and preaching to the choir. I sincerely doubt this would convert anyone or count as evidence for anything occurring. if you want to witness to someone, it's much better to appeal to emotion or scare tactics – as those are less easily refuted. When you cite geology and biology, please be ready to present credible evidence that supports your hypothesis that Noah's Flood took place. To my knowledge, such a thing hasn't happened yet.
4. “Remember, uniformitarianism was dogmatically taught in geology for a long time. Lyell insisted that the geological features of the earth must be explained by slow gradual processes of erosion, sedimentation, earthquakes and volcanism operating at essentially the same rate and power as we observe today. That rules out global floods a priori.”
To say that a science necessarily had a dogma is laughable. A particular science's tenets are based on what the evidence suggest, not some kind of a priori agenda. If there is other evidence that stands up to scrutiny that more accurately describes the phenomena, the first is thrown out or modified to fit the new evidence and to ultimately enhance our understanding of the subject.
5. “In good faith, I encourage you to read the links I provided in the article for “further reading” for background that I don't have time to provide and would probably not be able to explain anywhere near as well. “
Answers In Genesis? People who think dinosaurs rode saddles and animals traveled on a series of rafts are your backup? Excuse me if I don't find their scientific work groundbreaking or credible.
Comment by Marc on 19 May 2010 at 20:58
“To say that a science necessarily had a dogma is laughable. A particular science's tenets are based on what the evidence suggest, not some kind of a priori agenda. If there is other evidence that stands up to scrutiny that more accurately describes the phenomena, the first is thrown out or modified to fit the new evidence and to ultimately enhance our understanding of the subject. “
Tavarish,
As I recall from my undergrad days what you have laid out here is called naive inductionism, naive for very obvious reasons (well, obvious to someone who has done a little History and Philosophy of Science).
Data do not just explain themselves. You have to have some sort of overarching theory that unites all those bits and bobs.
As for Lyell, Duane is right. Lyell already believed (i.e before he went into the field) that the world's geology was not a result of a worldwide catastrophe or even many such events.
May I suggest that you go on to the search engine at http://www.creation and do some research about this subject and others?
Comment by Duane on 19 May 2010 at 22:04
Marc to tav: “May I suggest that you go on to the search engine at http://www.creation and do some research about this subject and others?”
Wha'! Dat dare crayshun folk what fink day ride dinosores an' stuff. Day don' know nuttin'
[a more serious response to Tav later tonight]
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 20 May 2010 at 01:01
One of the things that I strongly encourage in our readers, and I consistently appeal to myself, is critical thinking. Like Galileo, we believe that the God who endowed us with sense, reason and intellect never intended us to forego their use. So I want people to use their God-given brains, to acquire and implement the tools of how to think.
Especially when they observe comments like those left by Tavarish. We grant that he often reflects the voice of contemporary culture, but that is exactly the problem. His skepticism is either irrelevantly biographical or pointlessly iterative, switching from one to the other depending on the subject. But that is precisely the pulse that beats in contemporary culture. From youth we’re saturated by our public education and mass media with postmodernist ideology, leaving us pointlessly iterative and irrelevantly biographical when confronted by competing views that challenge what we think.
Observe how Tavarish has engaged this article. “It’s not obvious that, as a Christian, you would believe the Bible to be historically accurate.” It is not obvious to who? Him, of course. Surely he would not presume to be anyone else’s spokesman. However, that’s biographical detail—which isn’t relevant to anything beyond himself. Who cares what is or isn’t obvious to him? Or how about when he tells us, “I sincerely doubt this would convert anyone.” Again, why should anyone care what he sincerely doubts? Or notice his constant appeal for credible evidence to support this or that. Why is he asking for evidence? Maybe because he finds it intellectually irresponsible to believe something without adequate evidence supporting it. But again, why should anyone care what it takes for him to believe something? His belief is neither required or asked for. Here we have just biographical information that is simply not relevant.
Watch his comments here, and elsewhere at this site, paying careful attention to what he says. If you extract what is biographical (statements about what he thinks, or what he doubts, or what he needs in order to believe something, etc.) and what is pointlessly iterative (the how-do-you-know infinite regress), if you extract those things, observe whether or not anything is left remaining. This is important, because no statement or argument is affected, much less refuted, by what Tavarish happens to believe, doubt, think, or find laughable, convincing, silly, significant, etc. That is relevant for getting to know Tavarish personally, but irrelevant for determining the truth of a statement or validity of an argument.
Tavarish himself could see this if he ever tried reversing the roles. For example, if he stated something like, “Morality is intelligible without reference to God,” and Duane responded to him by saying, “Show me evidence in the Bible for that” (for that is what constitutes Duane’s standard of evidence for metaethics), does that refute or even cast doubt on Tavarish’s position? Of course not. It’s simply an appeal for evidence suitable for Duane; i.e., it is biographical detail. The same applies here. Duane suggested that the Flood was historical, and Tavarish said he would require evidence for that—which has biographical relevance only. Why should anyone care what Tavarish happens to find believable or probable, etc.?
If one wants to get to know Tavarish as a person, then his biographical details would be relevant and meaningful. If one wants to critically evaluate the position that Duane put forward, then the irrelevantly biographical and pointlessly iterative simply will not be of any help.
“I need evidence in order to believe Y.” So what.
“I find X laughable.” Who cares.
“How do you know P?” By way of Q. “How do you know Q?” By way of R. “How do you know R?” Behold the pointlessly iterative.
Comment by Duane on 20 May 2010 at 08:03
Tav: “I'll be sure to refute every single one of your assertions in my blog, then shoot you an email, since I'm at work right now and can't recall specifics about Mt. St. Helens offhand. Would that be acceptable?”
What would be acceptable is if you don't elephant hurl with distractive comments.
“It's not obvious that as a Christian, you would believe the bible to be historically accurate. Many Christians believe the Bible to be mainly allegorical and a metaphor to God's nature, rather than events that truly took place.”
Pointing out the inconsistent position that some Christians hold with regard to the reliability and/or authority of scripture is no reason to think that the Bible is in fact not making historical claims in/about real space-time history.
“Demonstrating reasonableness sounds like confirmation bias and preaching to the choir. I sincerely doubt this would convert anyone or count as evidence for anything occurring. … When you cite geology and biology, please be ready to present credible evidence that supports your hypothesis that Noah's Flood took place. To my knowledge, such a thing hasn't happened yet.”
Your “sincere” doubts are not relevant to whether or not people actually are affected by the evidence. Demonstrating reasonableness is completely consistent with the scientific method, where a hypothesis or model about the origin or function of some thing or other is checked against the evidence through observation and experiment. And I did suggest you look into the work of Steve Austin, so to suggest that “such a thing hasn't happened yet” while refusing to consider the evidence I am attempting to provide doesn't strike me as fair-minded.
“To say that a science necessarily had a dogma is laughable. A particular science's tenets are based on what the evidence suggest, not some kind of a priori agenda. If there is other evidence that stands up to scrutiny that more accurately describes the phenomena, the first is thrown out or modified to fit the new evidence and to ultimately enhance our understanding of the subject.”
Thomas Kuhn documents in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, that a conclusion-first approach is in fact the way ALL science works, and has always worked throughout history! Moreover, Steve Austin's floating log mat model was demonstrated to be accurate as a result of the Mount St. Helens eruption. Why doesn't that count?
“Answers In Genesis? People who think dinosaurs rode saddles and animals traveled on a series of rafts are your backup? Excuse me if I don't find their scientific work groundbreaking or credible.”
Oh yes, ridiculing creationists. That totally helps your argument. Many AiG staff (and staff from similar ministries) hold respectable qualifications in geology and other sciences. So exactly what is it about the qualifications of people like Dr John Whitmore, Dr Graeme Mortimer, Dr Steve Austin, Dr Andrew Snelling, Dr Emil Silvestru or Dr John Morris (to name a few), that make them unqualified as an authority to publish on this topic?
Comment by Duane on 20 May 2010 at 08:54
“The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth.” – Professor John Lennox, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University.
Just to demonstrate how misinformed Tavarish's position is on this (and there are plenty of examples like this), consider what Charles Darwin wrote in his journal while exploring the Santa Cruz river as part of his journey on the beagle, which later included the now famous stopover at the Galapagos Islands.
“The river, though it has so little power in transporting even inconsiderable fragments, yet in the lapse of ages might produce by its gradual erosion an effect of which it is difficult to judge the amount.” – link
Darwin saw the river and he applied a uniformitarian geological interpretation to what he saw. Where did he get such an idea? Are such facts so plain from a cursory observation of the rocks and the river? No, it was Lyell's uniformitarian influence. How do I know that? Because Darwin was reading Lyell's book while on the Beagle.
Referring to his voyage on the Beagle (1831–1836), [Darwin] wrote, “I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which I studied attentively; and this book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read.” – link
In fact the second volume of Lyell's work, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo.
As Marc has already pointed out, evidence does not interpret itself. Uniformitarianism was Darwin's framework for understanding everything he saw on that voyage, including his biological observations. Evolution by the slow and gradual process of natural selection is nothing more than uniformitarianism applied to biology.
Comment by Duane on 20 May 2010 at 09:37
Rick,
Thanks for your comment and and sorry for not acknowledging your input.
Yes, the logs that settled in Spirit Lake in an upright position as the result of the Mount St. Helens explosion, was pretty much the death knell for the uniformitarian interpretation of the petrified trees in Yellowstone National Park.
In fact in a 2003 lecture I listened to by Steve Austin he reported that the sign at Yellowstone that glorified the uniformitarian understanding of this area has now been removed. The sign said something like; “…the forest you see there today is only the latest chapter in a remarkable story. Buried within the rock layers … are 27 distinct layers of fossil forest that flourished 50 million years ago.” A Scientific America magazine article in 1960 claimed it was proof positive of millions of years of multiple forest growth.
And then Mount St. Helens explodes and produces a multi-layer forest on the bottom of Spirit Lake in one day! No wonder they removed the sign. To quote Steve Austin, “What we saw at Mount St. Helens impacted the study of Yellowstone National Park.”
That is, unless Creationists stole the sign in denial? ;)
Comment by Mathew on 25 May 2010 at 00:01
Found this quote from ardent evolutionist Richard Lewontin and thought it related to part of the conversation here in these comments:
“The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, a state, a productive structure, and they view nature through a lens that has been molded by their social experience” [emphasis mine].
Comment by Duane on 24 Jun 2010 at 07:57
A recent related article on this topic.