THE GENESIS FLOOD by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris

by JF

Henry Morris was the scientist, John Whitcomb was the theologian. With this book they together created what Neo-Darwinian philosopher Stephen Jay Gould called “the founding document of the creationist movement.” It was published in 1961. I had long been aware of this book, I’d been wanting to read it someday, eventually; I finally did. Despite its being more than a half-century old, surprisingly little of it is in any kind of need of updating, as the issues, arguments, facts, and scientific principles are pretty much just like they were in 1961.

Morris’s particular field of scientific study, for which he certainly had all the right scientific credentials, was hydrogeology; which, as convenience–or dare I say the Lord–would have it, is exactly the kind of scientific background a man might need in order to be able to expound upon the possibles and probables of the Noahic Flood. And expound Morris does, and it is overabundantly clear that Morris knew a very great deal about what he was writing; truly, there is a great deal here about the actions and effects of lots of water upon lots of dirt.

But Morris doesn’t limit himself to just his particular specialized field of scientific study; this is so very unlike Darwinian philosopher-scientists, who have such a penchant for hiding behind their own particular field of study, so often feigning near total ignorance of other scientific fields, especially in the middle of a debate. Morris, as is now common among many leading Creation apologists, evinces a markedly more well rounded scientific education; he could and did herein write much about multiple fields of study, convincingly and scientifically. Creationists are of course held to a higher standard by the world and its exclusionary academic Darwinian priests, the fortunate result of this double-standard is the oft-repeated spectacle of leading Creationist apologists nearly always performing much better than the leading Darwinian apologists in debates, Morris being an early 1960s example of this phenomenon.

This book was a landmark achievement over a half century ago. The scientific and other information contained herein would seem to this reader to remain acutely relevant in our day. Typically, and expectedly, neo-Darwinians simply dismiss this sort of scientific treatise; on occasion they may deign to airily “refute” parts of it, but they can probably only do so by committing one or other of the assumptive fallacies which Morris and Whitcomb have already likewise exposed as being unscientific. For example, the aforementioned High Priest of Darwinism, Steven Jay Gould, ridiculed Morris’s Genesis Deluge account of today’s “fossil record” thusly:

“Surely, somewhere, at least one courageous trilobite would have paddled on valiantly (as its colleagues succumbed) and won a place in the upper strata. Surely, on some primordial beach, a man would have suffered a heart attack and been washed into the lower strata before intelligence had a chance to plot a temporary escape….No trilobite lies in the upper strata because they all perished 225 million years ago. No man keep lithified company with a dinosaur, because we were still 60 million years in the future when the last dinosaur perished.”

With this quote, Gould, like most Darwinists tend to do, has taken the complicated scientific principles which Morris lays out, then he mixes in some unscientific assumptions which Morris already exposed as such in other parts of the book (like the circular reasoning of how Darwinists date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks, and the impossible problem–from the Darwinian account–of the gigantic geological overthrusts, etc.), and Gould then dumbs down the argument to where the average non-investigating plebe will be browbeaten into submission by Gould’s puerile rhetoric. So guys like Gould can go on appealing–as well as teaching–to the majority that long ago and far away in a distant land we and all other life forms came from a rock, and then he never even told us where in the Hell the rock ever came from in the first place, much less how the rock became alive; but that balderdash is considered “science” to unregenerate men like Gould, while he gets to have a mainstream-majority podium with which to mock a thoroughly scientific endeavor like this work of Morris’s.

The world is upside down, same as it ever was, just a different set of academic high priests overlording and suppressing empirical and logical dissent.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ