Dixieland stratigraphic column
My emotions upon viewing the first hit ranged from confused to giddy disbelief to nausea to nearly rage:
The Uniformitarian Stratigraphic Column- Shortcut or Pitfall for Creation Geology?
The absurdities that abound in this "article" almost bring me to tears. First of all, its the only place I've ever seen a succession of sedimentary strata referred to as "the column". Is that like "The Core" but with fewer diamonds and more geodes?
Alternative approaches to defining stratigraphy within the Christian Worldview are needed and that work is underway.
That's like saying "Alternative approaches to defining the origin of God within the context of evolution is needed and work is under way." Oh the irony! How, pray tell, do you redefine rocks? Oh, but they do:
the geologic column...is an idealized representation of the crust as it would be absent erosion and nondepositionArgh! Wash your eyes out as soon as you read this mangled excuse for a definition!
But I did learn about a new model that apparently escaped my attention over the last 10 years of formal training in sedimentary geology:
The Creation/Curse/Catastrophe ModelI may have to redeux my thesis. But the grand finale is too much to not post:
The CCC model (Gentet, 2000a; 2000b) proposes that most of the geologic record is a result of extra-Flood catastrophes associated with the divine curse of Genesis 3.
The uniformitarian stratigraphic column encapsulates the modern geologic interpretation of the earth’s crust. Unfortunately, that interpretation includes the rejection of the Christian worldview in favor of Naturalism—a worldview that replaces a reality founded on God’s Creation and governance of the universe with an impersonal, uncaring mechanism. It also substitutes Christianity’s confidence in a truth granted by God’s revelation with an unstable positivism that succeeds only when it pilfers Christian doctrine. Finally, it sterilizes a meaningful and rich history, substituting a timeframe designed to dismiss the immanent presence of the Creator, and fills its endless ages with pseudo-scientific “just-so” stories. When we consider the vast chasm that lies between Naturalism and Christianity, we do not see how creationists can escape the necessity of razing that worldview until no two stones are left standing, and then rebuilding natural history and its derivative stratigraphy from the ground up.
Creationist proponents of adopting the stratigraphic column believe that they are simply incorporating an empirical construct without any stain of Naturalism. We are confident that they decry any influence of Naturalism in creationism and gladly eschew its tenets. However, we fear that they are missing connections between the column and that worldview and we challenge them to examine more closely the assumptions, methods, and conclusions that surround the column. We hope that they come to see the difference between the perceptual and conceptual. If it quacks like a duck…
We thank our spouses for allowing us the time and opportunity to research and write this article. We also thank Dr. Emmett Williams and Mr. Jerry Akridge for their helpful comments. Any mistakes that remain are our own. Glory to God in the highest! (Prov. 3:5–6).
To read this you'd think a sedimentary geologists was up there with Baby Seal Clubber and Osama bin Laden on the Most Wanted List. It is a model of model-driven "science". You can not set out to prove a predetermined conclusion in science, because THEN IT WOULDN'T BE SCIENCE! I would love to go through this more and point out the ameture nature of this pseudo-science, but did I mention it's late?
In the end, I really only have one question: would a pub in this journal count toward tenure and promotion?