The Flood—a designed catastrophe?

by

Article from:
Journal of Creation
27(3):12-12
December 2013
Noahs-ark

Catastrophe in geology has come into vogue again. Through the research of those such as J Harlen Bretz on the Missoula Flood1 and the wide acceptance of the asteroid impact hypothesis for the postulated Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary extinction event,2 secular researchers are recognizing more features of the rock record are best explained in catastrophic terms. In many ways, this has allowed more opportunity for direct dialogue between Flood geologists and secular geologists.

The concept of catastrophe allows both secular and biblical geologists to work with similar frames of reference, which was not possible under the 150-year hegemony of a strict Lyellian gradualism. It may also allow biblical creationists to use more modern work as a crucial first step in explaining the rock record in the biblical framework.

However, the common language of ‘catastrophe’ only goes so far. The chronological contexts in which the catastrophes are conceived remain as contradictory as ever. A commitment to a broadly uniformitarian philosophy of history, especially with respect to chronology, necessarily restricts any rigorous application of catastrophist thinking to the rock record for secular geologists.3 Moreover, in terms of physical effects, the biblical Flood is considered far more devastating than any uniformitarian ‘catastrophe’.

For most biblical creationists, most uniformitarian ‘catastrophes’ are just location-specific features of one massive biblical catastrophe—Noah’s Flood.

However, there is a conceptual divide between secular and biblical catastrophists that has been little explored, and has the potential to create much confusion. It has to do with the very notion of ‘catastrophe’ itself. When a secular researcher conceives of a ‘catastrophe’ in the deep time framework, he conceives of an essentially random event that killed creatures indiscriminately. It is the result of spontaneous physical causes.

As such, it can only be explained in terms of physical cause and effect.

However, the key catastrophe in the Bible that explains much of the rock record, Noah’s Flood, was not such a random event. It was a planned event—God announced to Noah He was going to bring a Flood and commanded Noah to build the Ark (Genesis 6:13–16), which would have taken a long time to build. Creatures were not killed in an indiscriminate manner in the Flood—specific classes of creatures were targeted for total extinction: humans and terrestrial nephesh animals (Genesis 6:17). Another feature of the Flood was that it was designed to allow for the survival of a specific group of humans and terrestrial nephesh animals both during the Flood and after it—those on Noah’s Ark (Genesis 6:18–20). While the Ark was clearly engineered to survive the Flood,4 it can also be said that the Flood was engineered to allow the survival of the Ark. God had stated purposes in the Flood catastrophe, and the Flood was designed to carry them out. Clearly the biblical Flood was not a random catastrophe.

Why does this difference matter? It presents a key difference for how biblical creationists and secular geologists conceptualize the rock record. Since the secular conception of ‘catastrophe’ is naturalistic, they are constrained to conceive of the causes in such catastrophes in purely naturalistic terms.

However, this is not so for the biblical Flood. The rock record is not ultimately subject to naturalistic causes but is ultimately a consequence of the teleological concerns presented in Genesis 6–9. This raises the thorny question of divine agency, mode of providence, and miracles, which is beyond the scope of this article to fully address. Suffice it to say here that teleological concerns do not necessitate miracles but allow for miracles.5

Of special concern for Flood modellers is the need to avoid thinking of the Flood as just a bigger version of a naturalistic catastrophe. The Flood is qualitatively distinct from any other catastrophe we have sufficient knowledge of because it has a teleology.

This does mean that whether the Flood can be explained purely in terms of natural law is an open question because ‘natural law’ is not the final authority in evaluating Flood models—God’s stated purposes in the Flood are.

References and notes

  1. Oard, M.J., The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood, Creation Research Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ, 2004. Return to text.
  2. Froede Jr, C.R., The K/T impact hypothesis and secular neocatastrophism why is this important to Flood geology?, J. Creation 25(3):13–14, 2011. Return to text.
  3. Reed, J.K., Demythologizing uniformitarian history, CRSQ 35(3):156–165, 1998. Return to text.
  4. Woodmorappe, J., Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1996. Return to text.
  5. Bardwell, J., Proposed boundaries for the use of miracles; in: Bardwell, J. (Ed.), The Flood Science Review, In Jesus’ Name Productions, pp. 1639–1644, 2011; injesusnameproductions.org. Return to text.
Oard, M.J., The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood, Creation Research Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ, 2004.
Froede Jr, C.R.,
Reed, J.K., Demythologizing uniformitarian history, CRSQ 35(3):156–165, 1998.
Woodmorappe, J., Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1996.
Bardwell, J., Proposed boundaries for the use of miracles; in: Bardwell, J. (Ed.), The Flood Science Review, In Jesus’ Name Productions, pp. 1639–1644, 2011; injesusnameproductions.org.

Related Articles

Further Reading

Readers’ comments
Ken B., Australia, 1 January 2015
In considering that God was in control of the flood then we can see the present-day earth as aftermath of the flood, as also determined by God. I know this is a fallen world but there is still so much beauty to be enjoyed. God created the beautiful Merri River area where I spent my childhood. Another significant outcome of the flood is the Jordan River valley rift leading down to the Dead Sea, the lowest point on earth. It was in the Jordan River Jesus was baptized. Baptism represents going down into death and rising again to new life. How fitting that here, hundreds of metres below sea level, close to the lowest point on earth, Jesus was baptised pre-figuring His pending death as the atoning sacrifice for my sins. Praise God.
Ralph T., United Kingdom, 2 January 2015
Hi Brother Ken. B; You have hit the nail on the head, and I am blessed with your analogy of our Lord Jesus baptism. Thank you so much - I do call up these 'articles' and try and influence as many as I can of my friends to 'join-up'. I am really blessed with the helps given, and would appreciate your prayers for me for this next Sunday 4th, when I shall be presenting an 'Evolution/creation' topic and challenge to my Church Fellowship, to get more understanding of answers to atheistic questions. Be blessed this year too. Ralph.
Richard P., Canada, 2 January 2015
Here's a small but interesting item: The "J" at the beginning of Bretz's name is not an abbreviation. It's just a letter (so no period should be written after it). According to Wikipedia: 'Bretz's daughter explains how he got his name. "He invented the Harlen thing, just as he had invented the J in front of his name--made the whole thing up. 'Harley Bretz' was his given name, but it just didn't ring a bell for him; maybe he didn't think it sounded professional enough."'
Larry E., United States, 7 January 2015
Love your articles. I understand the Hebrews in the past used 360 days for a year. Are there any articles showing why we have 365 days per year.
Shaun Doyle responds