rem; very well put.
Hooberus; great link, nice to have a little something to laugh at whilst I drink my coffee;
Because the time available for geologic work is so compressed by the Biblical record, any effort to understand the relationships between the rocks and time may be actually misdirecting workers away from more profitable investigations of geologic history.
The relationships between rocks and time doesn't fit with what we want to believe, so we'll ignore it.
We fear that the first steps of this path may be taken anew in the twentieth century by seeking to harmonize the Bible with the GUC. It is our opinion that a viable creationist stratigraphy requires adherence to Scripture and eschews modification of a biblical worldview to accommodate uniformitarianism.
We've decided the Bible is right and we'll modify our interpretation of the world to fit in with it.
The Current Divide Within Creationist Stratigraphy
We can't even agree amongst ourselves, which is a bummer, as we always point to dispute in evolutionist's ranks as a sign of their theories being false
We fear an epistemological imbalance between Scripture and uniformitarian geology. Contrary to modern positivism, we assert that biblical revelation is primary and superior to any naturalist interpretation of history. Thus, there can be no balanced comparison between the “truth of science” and the truth of Scripture in an attempt to reconcile the two. Rather, any interpretation of history that rejects biblical revelation should in turn be rejected and its interpretive results should be carefully examined for all hidden presuppositions implanted by the naturalist framework.
We've decided the Bible is right. Any evidence that indicates that the Bible is not right should be rejeceted. In doing so, being presuppositionalists as we are, we have to be hypocritical in pointing to suppositions in evolutionists' and conventional geologists' theories, even though there is an evidentary trial or logical reason for their presuppostions, whilst ours are based on a book that cannot be proven as divinely inspired (unless we presuppose it is and reject evidence to the contrary).
Advances in creationist stratigraphy have been frustratingly slow in the last four decades. There has been no direct impact in the secular geologic community. This is because the naturalists have been quick to realize the fundamental nature of the challenge of creationism not just to their historical scenarios, but to their very worldview. With few workers, creationist geology has been both slow to develop alternate interpretations and confusing to those workers who have insisted on the priority of following the GUC in their work. Some researchers have discovered that the gulf between the GUC and the Bible is wider than first hoped. Some have not been able to shift their assumptions toward the Scriptures, and have become advocates of a theistic version of uniformitarianism that does no justice to Genesis. Others have not vigorously pursued their models to logical conclusions, and thus work with inconsistencies in their framework.
Over the past four decades various strategies for using the GUC as a framework for biblical history have been proposed by creationists. We have examined three of these proposals against the strata found within the NGOMB. All of these approaches fail either because of the time/energy demands of the sedimentary record relative to a short post-Flood history.
We have no decent theories.
Failure to discard bad ideas will only lead to greater confusion in creation science.
We have no sense of irony, and little ability to be introspective.
We hope that other creationists will focus their efforts developing concepts and models that eschew the GUC. By changing this conceptual framework, we can open new doors to understanding geology and the Bible, we can focus our studies on understanding the Flood’s impact on the Antediluvian world, and we can jettison the evolutionary baggage that permeates the GUC. We hope this will lead to greater productivity as we base our investigations more consciously on Scripture instead of worrying about how to make the Bible work within a system based on evolution.We hope that other creationists will focus their efforts developing concepts and models that eschew the GUC. By changing this conceptual framework, we can open new doors to understanding geology and the Bible, we can focus our studies on understanding the Flood’s impact on the Antediluvian world, and we can jettison the evolutionary baggage that permeates the GUC. We hope this will lead to greater productivity as we base our investigations more consciously on Scripture instead of worrying about how to make the Bible work within a system based on evolution.
There is hope ahead. If we ignore the real world enough, we'll be able to come up with some corking theories based oin the Bible.