Other Young Earth Book Reviews The Genesis Flood Review Homepage
Creation Science Book Review:
The Genesis Flood
by Henry Morris
Review by Greg Neyman
© 2006, Old Earth Ministries
Review Published June 2006
Old Earth Ministries Science website
The intention of this chapter is to introduce seven arguments in favor of a universal flood. The authors no doubt intend this to mean a "global" flood, because old earth creationists also accept a "universal" flood, although local in geographic extent. The authors mention that Chapters 2 and 3 will cover objections to these seven arguments, so I will address these issues in more depth in those chapters.
Chapter 1
Basic Arguments for a Universal Flood
Other Chapters
Mouseover the links for Chapter Titles
Chapter 1
The Depth of the Flood (Page 1)
The argument here is based on Genesis 7:19-20;
And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. (NASB)
As an old earth creationist, who believes in a local flood, I can completely agree with Genesis 7:19-20, and take it literally. One must remember that both the creation account, and the flood account are written from the perspective of mankind. The creation account is written from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth, and the flood account from the perspective of a person standing on the ark (after all, there was nobody else left on earth to remember it!). If you were on the ark, all you saw in every direction was water. The entire world which you formerly knew was gone. There were no mountains in sight. Noah's entire world was flooded.
The Duration of the Flood (Page 3)
There is nothing here of interest, since old earth creationists accept the timeline for the flood events. Of interest, though, is the authors conclusion that the flood reached maximum depth after the 40 days of rain. I would agree with this conclusion. One must also note that the other source for the floodwaters, the "fountains of the deep," did not stop until day 150. If the maximum depth was reached after 40 days, yet new waters continued until day 150, this supports the local flood scenario. The authors state that the length of the flood (371 days) is not supportable from a local flood perspective. However, if the water sources continued to feed the flood for 150 days, it is entirely possible to sustain a long-duration local flood.
The authors mention local flood advocate Arthur Custance, and argue against his reasoning. While interesting, it really is unimportant, since the timing of the raven is a side issue. It is merely one point in which the YEC authors can attack a local flood theory, and it provides an easy target. In the mind of the YEC reader, they see this as evidence against the local flood theory, when in fact it has little bearing upon the global vs. local issue. This highlights a young earth tactic that has been used since the writing of this book...to pick out obscure points and cast the old earth creationists in a bad light...without ever fully addressing the real issues.
In closing this section, the authors state, "For if nothing could be seen but the tops of mountains after the waters had subsided for 74 days, we are left with no other alternative than to conclude that the Flood covered the whole earth." There is no evidence to support this assumption. Reading the first part of this sentence, there is only one conclusion...if nothing could be seen but the tops of the mountains, then it is obvious that the flood still covered this region where Noah was located. There is nothing in the wording of the first part of the sentence which suggests you can extend this to cover the entire earth.
The Geology of the Flood (Page 7)
The authors present little information here, but there will be much on geology later in the book. At the end, they make the observation that the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep imply a worldwide flood, and cannot be reconciled with a local flood. Why not? They give no reasons. It all depends on the size of this "breaking." There is no reason to assume that it cannot be reconciled with a local flood account.
The Size of the Ark (Page 10)
The authors discuss the length of a cubit, and the volume of the ark. They again pick an argument with Arthur Custance, who argues against the size of the ark. Again, this is a side issue. Most people today favor the size proposed by young earth creationists, at around 450 feet in length. Custance does bring up some good critiques, which bear examination, but ultimately, whether the ark was 200 or 450 feet long, makes no difference.
The authors bring up the point that such a large vessel would not be needed for a local flood, and that alone proves it was global. No...the only thing a 450 foot long ark proves is that the ark was 450 feet long. If one wanted to base the ark's size on the global flood, one would need a boat much bigger than 450 feet! To resolve this, YECs resort to the "kind" argument...they cannot take the Bible literally, assuming each species was present, for such an ark would be massive indeed.
The Need for an Ark (Page 11)
The ark itself was a testimony against the evil people of that generation. It provided 100 years of testimony, during its construction, against the people. Yes, Noah could have simply moved away, but God wanted to make a more dramatic statement. Besides, if Noah moved, the others could easily have moved also. By Noah staying put and building the ark, God kept the people geographically together during the 100 years of the ark's construction, and no doubt Noah, and the ark visually, preached against the people.
Arthur Custance's statement about this is adequate. None of the questions posed by the authors presents any valid objections to such a theory.
Next, they argue against Custance's idea that only domesticated animals need go on the ark. They ask were in Genesis does the Bible say this. Then they give the answer (partially). Morris and Whitcomb say the purpose of the flood was to destroy both man, beast, creeping things, and birds. The key is in Genesis 6:12:
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (KJV)
The purpose of the flood was to wipe out this corruption. The main meaning for the Hebrew word for flesh, bâsâr, is person or man. The Hebrew dictionary doesn't even make it possible to extend this to animal flesh. God is not talking about the corruption of the animal kingdom, but about man’s corruption. This is corrected in some other translations (NIV, “people”; Amplified, “humanity”). The purpose of the flood was to wipe out man, not animals. Yes, animals in the flooded locations would be killed, but they are not the target of God. Thus, all that was needed was a local flood.
One could carry this question further...Why was an ark needed? God could have merely vaporized everyone, and left Noah by himself...the end result would have been the same! The ark provided a testimony to those living at the time, and an object lesson for us today...a lesson of simple obedience on Noah's part.
The Testimony of the Apostle Peter (Page 14)
The testimony of Peter works fine with a local flood as well, as the world that was then (known world) was destroyed by God. The passage does not require a global flood. In addition, Peter's reference to the creation in this passage gives no indication of the length of the creation.
The authors of this book use the term "universal" to imply their global flood. However, that is the term currently used by old earth creationists, when we say the local flood was local in size, but universal in effect. In other words, all of man's sphere of influence was flooded...it was universal when related to man's known world. Morris and Whitcomb did not realize this at the writing of this book, but many of their arguments, since they use the term "universal," could be used word for word by old earth creationists. Peter's statements fully support a universal flood (but local in geographic size).
The Total Destruction of a Widely-Distributed Human Race (Page 16)
This is broken down into two parts...the total destruction of the human race, and the global distribution of the human race. Since old earth creationists also believe everyone but Noah and his family were killed, the first presents no problems.
The global distribution of the human race prior to the flood is an issue for old earth creationists. Most old earth creationists say that the human race had not spread beyond the Mesopotamian region prior to the flood. The authors give two reasons to argue against this belief.
The first reason is Longevity. The reasoning here is that since the lifespans before the Flood were longer, there was plenty of time for the human population to outgrow the region. This is an "indirect" reasoning for the spread of humanity. In other words, it provides no direct evidence that mankind had spread...it is assumed that due to the population potential, it could have happened.
The authors use some deception in the numbers. They list some impressive numbers, and say some countries are going up by 2, and in some cases, 3 percent per year. They conclude that the present rate of world population increase is approximately 2 percent per year. They say their supposed rate for the period from the creation to the Flood is less than 1.5 percent per year. They say the world reached 1 billion in the first half of the 19th century (it was 1802...I would call that the beginning of the 19th century).
However, numbers can be twisted. Consider this chart of
the
historic population growth of mankind. It is based on the numbers from
the US
Census Bureau. As you can see, it would be very deceptive to base
the pre-flood population growth rates on the rates of the 20th century.
Throughout history, the rates have never been higher than they are now.
In the period from 2,000 BC to the birth of Christ (post-Flood) populations
rose from about 27 million to 170 million. Over 2,000 years, this
equates to an annual growth rate of just 0.092 percent.1
The 2 percent rate given by the authors is 21 times higher than the
post-flood growth rate before Christ. Can we really say today's growth
rates are indicative of pre-Flood rates? It's like comparing apples
and oranges. Yes, long life spans would have had an impact, but we
have no raw numbers to substantiate the population of the pre-Flood world.
Any estimates are merely wild guesses. (Actually, the 20th century
growth rate is 1.38 percent.)
On page 26, the authors estimate that the population
could have risen to over 1.03 billion, after 18 generations. Using the
standard young earth accepted dates of 4,004 BC for the creation, and 2,350
BC for the flood, the growth rate here is 1.2 percent. This is
comparable to the growth rate today. However, today's growth rates
cannot be compared with rates from the primitive cultures of thousands of
years ago. Also, this assumes a firm creation date of 4,004 BC, which
cannot be proven, and which actually can be disproven, since the age of the
earth is much older. We don't actually know when Adam walked the
earth. It could have been many thousands of years before 4,004 BC.
The young earth model is based on assumptions, not fact.
Fortunately, for the young earth creationists, you can make numbers report what you desire them to, which they have done in this case. But it is merely speculation. You can claim there were a billion people killed by the flood, but these numbers are merely drummed-up to support the claim by the authors that they had to have spread beyond the Middle East. It's not an argument from the facts...it is an argument from the requirements of the young earth theory.
Next the authors point to Gen 6:11 and 13, which state the earth was "filled" with violence. The argument is basically, "How could the earth be filled with violence, if only the Middle East was populated?" Since the account is written from man's perspective, all of man's world was filled with violence. Thus, the entire extent of man's domain (the Middle East) was violent. How much of man's world was violent? All of it. This presents no problems for a local flood either.
The next topic (page 28) addresses the genealogies, and how they don't list enough people. I agree that they are not all inclusive, and did not list every child that everyone had. This is not an argument used frequently by old earth creationists today.
He mentions an argument from Noah's preaching, and how it was within the hearing of all that generation. Thus, the old earth argument is that mankind had not spread, since they all had access to Noah's testimony against them. I agree that there is no direct teaching which says Noah preached to all humanity. But a lack of such does not help the young earth case, given the wealth of other information available.
The second topic that the authors say proves the worldwide distribution of pre-flood peoples is Paleontology. Yes, there are human fossils around the globe. The authors present no further information. However, they fail to point out one key point...many of these fossils, along with trace fossils (showing they were living at the time the rocks were there), are located on top of rock layers that supposedly were laid down by the Flood of Noah! These humans apparently all survived the flood which killed mankind, and were living on top of these flood sediments. If the young earth theory were correct, we should find human fossils buried deep within these layers...but there are none! The Grand Canyon, for instance, represents over a mile of sediment deposited by the Flood, yet there are no human fossils in the rocks of the Canyon. Human fossil distribution would argue that Noah, and millions of others, survived the so-called global flood!
Another argument, which is not mentioned, is that the people after the Flood all lived in the Middle East, and God had to go down and confuse the languages, and spread them all over the earth (the Tower of Babel, Genesis 11). Since there was also a common language prior to the Flood, it is likely that they also congregated in a similar geographic region prior to the flood.
1 Population Growth Rate= (Yt/Y0)(1/t) -1, where Yt is the population at 0 BC, Y0 is the population at 2,000 BC, and t is the elapsed time in years (2,000)
If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.
Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.