Geoscience Reports

Winter 1981, Number 1

Geoscience Consolidates Facilities

    July 1980 marked the beginning of a new phase in GRI history. Prior to this time, the two branches of the GRI operation were located on the Andrews University (Michigan) and Loma Linda University (California) campuses. At the March meeting of the GRI Board held at the General Conference headquarters in Washington, D.C., it was voted to consolidate both branches on the Loma Linda campus. Dominant reasons for moving to LLU were the potentially useful associations with the academic programs in Earth History, Geology, and Paleobiology. It was felt that closer contact with the students and staff in these disciplines would do much to broaden the informational base available to GRI, resulting in a stronger foundation from which GRI could serve the church's lay and academic communities.
    The move also provides substantial cost savings with the combined operations. The extensive geological library at GRI will be incorporated into the holdings of the LLU general library. With these combined holdings, the research aspects of GRI will be markedly improved.
    Staff members making the move to California were Drs. Robert H. Brown and Harold G. Coffin. Both arrived at LLU during the summer.
    Temporary housing of the Institute offices is in Magan Hall, Suite B, on the Loma Linda campus. Future plans envision moving into a proposed science complex building on the La Sierra-campus.

Introducing Geoscience Reports

Publication of Geoscience Reports marks a continuing developmental process for the GRI as it attempts to provide wider information base in the creation/evolution controversy. Written largely for the non-scientists in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, this newsletter will describe recent events of the Institute which have broader interest. It will include news of Institute programs, research projects, and the various educational workshops conducted. News from the Paleobiology and Biology groups of Loma Linda University as well as the scientific literature will be reported. It is hoped that the readership which includes science and religion teachers, pastors and administrators will benefit from increased awareness of issues in this critical area.

BRISCO convenes at Thousand Oaks

    The annual meeting of the Biblical Research Institute Science Council (BRISCO) was held at the Seventh-day Adventist Media Center in Thousand Oaks, California, from June 17-19. BRISCO is a General Conference committee formed to study creation/ evolution problems as they affect the SDA Church. Organized in 1970, its mandate is to examine areas of tension between interpretations of Science and Religion. At this meeting of theologians and scientists, papers are presented with significant time allowed for discussion. Each year the conference meets in a locale of geological or scientific interest. Generally, one day is designated for field study, allowing the visiting personnel a first-hand view of the evidences from nature.
    The field trip this year led to two significant geological sites. The Ventura Basin is the site of the first oil discovery in California. The rich oil-bearing layers even yet show places where oil is found seeping out of the ground. At times this petroleum ignites and burns underground, creating intense heat and causing the rock to change form. At one locality, within an area of 100 yards, one could see both the normal whitish rock of the formation and reddish portions of this same rock which had been heated from fires occurring in the ground sometime in the past. As participants of the field trip viewed this site, Ariel Roth read several E. G. White quotations (i.e., Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 108-110) of ongoing fires in the earth. In years past, these quotations have been attributed to allusions of secular authors which had no factual basis.
    A second stop was in the classical descriptive area for turbidite formation. Until recently, geologists believed that the sedimentary layers were laid down by a very slow silting process. A change in thinking of major proportions has taken place, and according to this new view, certain sedimentary layers are laid down in a few hours. This is caused by an underwater slumping of a bank and a resulting layer of material spreading rapidly over the ocean floor. A homey analogy would be the pouring of heavy syrup into water and seeing it spread over the bottom of a glass bowl. A slump containing 100 cubic kilometers (km = 0.6 miles) of material occurred in 1929 off the coast of Greenland, covering an area of 100,000 square miles in 13 hours. For a detailed account of this event see the article by Roth (1975) in Origins 2(2):106-107. (For those who do not subscribe to Origins, a copy of this article will be sent for $0.50). Some have now estimated that 40-50% of the sedimentary rock is of turbidite origin. This significant advance in geological understanding allows the creationist to better explain the layering in the earth with respect to a flood model.
    Next year=s gathering is scheduled to be held near Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington. The plans, however, are still tentative and depend upon the activity of the mountain itself.

Roth Named Director of GRI

    With the retirement of Dr. R. H. Brown on September 30, the directorship of GRI transferred to Dr. Ariel A. Roth. This action was formalized at the GRI Board meeting in Washington, D.C., in August 1980.
    Roth comes to the directorship with a wealth of past experience. After obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1955, he taught at Andrews University where in 1958 he became chairman of the Biology Department. In 1963 he assumed chairmanship of the newly developed graduate biology department at LLU. In 1971 he joined with GRI and in 1974 became the editor of Origins.
    Although his original training is in parasitology, Roth has retrained extensively in geology at the Riverside campus of the University of California. His research interests have focused on coral reef formation in present and ancient times. Roth's publications include scientific and popular articles as well as the updated scientific section on the Genesis flood in the SDA Bible Commentary.
    Born in Switzerland, Roth emigrated to the U.S. in his teens. Conversant in French and German, he brings to the GRI a rich background which will do much to strengthen the operation of GRI.

Creation Bill in Georgia

    "Creation by God" will not be taught in the science classrooms of Georgia's public schools this year, but the battle for its inclusion was fought until the closing minutes of the 1980 legislative session. The passage of Georgia House Bill 690 would have mandated the "teaching and presentation of creation by God" as an alternative view of origins.
    To some extent creationist ideas have already won official acceptance in Georgia. Creationist textbooks were included among those approved by the State Department of Education, and thirteen counties (including two of the largest public school systems in Georgia) endorsed a balanced, two-model approach to origins.
    H.B. 690 received impressive support from the State Parent Teacher Association and the Georgia Baptist Convention, along with such individuals as the Chief judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals, Braswell D. Deen, Jr. As the publicity increased, the American Atheists Association opened an Atlanta chapter to counteract the rising popularity of H.B. 690. Further opposition came from the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the Georgia Education Association.
    A compromise version of H.B. 690 was approved by the Senate on the last day of the 1980 legislative session, but the House adjourned before a final vote could be taken. Supporters of the two-model approach to origins believe that passage of similar legislation can occur next year.

Coffin to Teach at Andrews

Harold Coffin will spend the winter quarter at Andrews University where, for more than 10 years, he has taught a course in science and religion for seminary students. This collaboration between Andrews and GRI provides these students with an opportunity to examine the problems that occur between the Genesis account of creation and current scientific investigation. While the majority of scientific results are interpreted by an evolutionary model, Coffin's course attempts to show alternative interpretations of these data that are more in harmony with the biblical record. In addition to his teaching,Coffin will be completing a revision of his book, Creation — Accident or Design?

Brown Lectures in Southeast Asia

Recognizing the increased need for discussion in the creation/ evolution controversy, the Far Eastern Division invited R.H. Brown to visit its schools of higher education. Traveling to Korea, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and Singapore, Brown conferred with science and religion teachers as well as students. Lectures, both technical and philosophical, were presented with, time for questions and further discussions. Upon his return in November, Brown spoke strongly of the need for creation material that is written in the national languages. In previous years, similar conferences were conducted by Harold Coffin.

Tkachuck joins GRI

    Richard D. Tkachuck has joined GRI as of July 1, 1980. The responsibilities he assumes include being Executive Editor of Origins and developing a research program which will examine the process of speciation. The naming of Tkachuck as Executive Editor is an attempt to relieve Ariel A. Roth of many of the day-to-day responsibilities of the journal, allowing him more time for research, writing, and administrative duties. Roth, who has been editor of Origins since its inception in 1974, has been in great demand as an author and speaker.
    The research program to be carried out by Tkachuck will center on the mechanism of speciation. It will attempt to determine how much change is possible in a life form and how rapidly the change can take place. Current scientific thought says that a period of up to 100,000 years may be necessary for a new species to form. This time period obviously presents significant problems for a creationist.
    Tkachuck's background includes an M.A. in Biology from LLU, a Ph.D. from UCLA, Notre Dame University, and the Univeristy of Iowa. While at Iowa he stepped out of science for three years to develop a secular campus ministry program. From Iowa he moved to Lincoln, Nebraska, where at Union College he was the campus chaplain. The following year he was chairman of Union's Science Division. This past year he has taught in the Biology department on the La Sierra campus of LLU. A summary of his research interests and ideas will appear in a later issue of Geoscience Reports.
    Tkachuck is married and has two children, ages 9 and 10.

GRI Research Grant Applications Due April 1, 1981

Research grants up to several thousand dollars are available from the Geoscience Research Institute on a competitive basis. Each year, the GRI sponsors study by qualified individuals outside the Institute. Research topics must have a direct bearing on some problem in the creation/ evolution controversy. Proposals for philosophical, biblical hermeneutics, or scientific work are equally acceptable.

WHO CAN APPLY: Any person with a serious interest in the above-mentioned area. Graduate or undergraduate students must be sponsored by a faculty member from their academic institution.
HOW TO APPLY: Proposals submitted should contain background information (including previous related research procedure, academic training and experience of the investigator), a statement of the problem to be studied, a review of the relevant literature, the method for examination of the topic, an estimate of the time required for completion of the project, and a budget sheet defending proposed costs (GRI grants do not pay institutional overhead charges).
WHEN TO APPLY: Application must be postmarked by April 1, 1981 and sent to Dr. A. A. Roth at the GRI. Award results will be made known by June 1, 1981.

Brand Publishes on Fossil Tracks

A paper entitled ''Field and Laboratory Studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) Vertebrate Footprints and their Paleoecological Implications" by Leonard Brand was recently published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 28:25-38 (1979). Brand, who is chairman of Biology at LLU, received his M.A. in Biology from LLU and a Ph.D. from Cornell University with specialization in vertebrate zoology. For some time he has been studying fossil animal footprints in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon area. The majority of current geological thinking interprets this formation as being a windblown sand dune deposit. Brand postulated that the tracks were formed while the sand was underwater. Using a large tank filled with sand under various conditions in the laboratory, Brand tested amphibians and reptiles to see what kind of tracks were made. A close correspondence between the track made in the underwater tests and fossil footprints was found, leading Brand to suggest underwater deposition of this formation. Response from several scientists in different parts of the world has been favorable. One suggested that similar deposits in Europe, with the same type of footprints, may also be water formed.
This paper has also been chosen to be included in a volume on terrestrial trace fossils in the series Benchmarh Papers in Geology.

Conference Slated for SDA Science Teachers

    Science teachers from academies in the North American Division will meet at Mt. Ellis Academy in Bozeman, Montana, July 30 to August 15. The purpose of the conference is to acquaint the participants with recent scientific findings which relate to the creation/ evolution controversy. Because of the heavy emphasis on evolution in many high-school textbooks, the Education Department of the General Conference requested that GRI provide opportunity to help these teachers better meet the questions of their students. Participating will be the GRI staff, members of the Biology and Paleobiology staff of LLU, General Conference administrators, and other professionals.
    Field trips are planned to give participants first-hand acquaintance with field data. Displays of teaching aids, films and other classroom helps will also be available.
    With the impact of evolution being felt in most areas of life, it is significant to know that teachers reaching Adventist youth will be better prepared to meet this challenge.

Pre-GSA Held Near SMC

Each year the Geological Society of America (GSA) holds an annual meeting for professionals in geology and earth history. Several years ago, it became apparent that a number of SDA geologists attended regularly. What started as an informal gathering of SDA scholars during GSA has now expanded to an organized pre-meeting in which this group can present research findings and discuss philosophical issues. This year, the GSA was in Atlanta; so it seemed natural to hold the pre-GSA at Southern Missionary College in Tennessee. The program was organized by Ed Hare of the Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institute, and Ron Carter from SMC's Biology Department.
Papers presented covered such topics as cosmology and the Big Bang, biblical interpretations of Genesis and the Psalms, and several papers of geological interest. On Sunday, a field trip showing local geologic features was led by Merlyn Nestell from the University of Texas. Next year, GSA will be held in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Fall Seminar Series in Review

For several years, GRI has sponsored a seminar on the Loma Linda campus during each quarter of the normal academic year. A wide variety of topics has been presented in areas of geology, physics, biology, and philosophy. Seminar speakers include students and professors from LLU, visiting scholars, and the GRI staff. A popular forum for the discussion of ideas, the seminar is also well attended by those whose major interests are in other areas.
Listed below is a brief summary of speakers and topics.

Dwight Hornbacher, LLU graduate student, spoke of his research during the past summer in Utah which tends to negate time in the geologic column.
Mike Rasmussen, LLU graduate student, discussed large and unusual trace fossils found in Permian rocks in the western United States.
Karen Jensen, LLU graduate student, reviewed the palynological (fossil pollen) conferences she attended in England last summer.
[HPB], Assistant Professor of Geology at LLU, proposed a model for formation of the Green River Shale in Wyoming.
Edwin Karlow, Chairman of the Physics Department at La Sierra, discussed the philosophical implications of choosing different interpretations of historical time.
Ariel A. Roth reported on the 26th International Geological Congress in Paris and some of his field work in the Swiss Alps.
Harold Coffin spoke of his recent trip to Mount St. Helens.
Ivan Rouse, Associate Professor of Physics at La Sierra, spoke on fission-track dating methods.
Douglas Eddleman, Associate Chairman of Biology at La Sierra, gave several examples of rapid speciation taking place in historical times.
Roy Jensen, LLU graduate student, presented evidence showing that the Arctic had a much warmer climate in the past.

Some of the speakers are preparing manuscripts of their presentations for publication in Origins.
The seminars, held each Tuesday noon during the academic year, are open to all who wish to attend.

European Field Conference Slated

    Ariel A. Roth, Director of GRI, spent two months this past summer in Europe preparing for a geological field conference to be held during the summer of 1981 for the Northern Europe Division of SDAs. Previous field conferences sponsored by the GRI have been held for General Conference administrators and SDA religion and science teachers. The '81 conference will represent the first time such a field school has been held outside North America. This demonstrates a concern by General Conference administrators that the world field be kept up to date with issues in the creation/evolution controversy. Part of Roth's itinerary included participation in a field conference sponsored by the 26th International Geological Congress in Paris. After the meetings, he continued with an independent study in the eastern Alps.
    Because an Adventist college and university system is not as extensive in Europe, a majority of students seeking higher degrees must attend secular universities. This does not allow the student to receive a balanced picture concerning origins. Thus the European field conference will be an attempt to upgrade the information and understanding of creation science among the SDA science and theology personnel in Europe.
    A particularly exciting feature of Roth's study is the fact that a significant portion of our understanding of geologic phenomena has its roots in this area of Europe. A more detailed report of Roth's tour will appear in next issue of Geoscience Reports.

Proof or Evidence?

Editor's Note: Two letters appear on the final page of this newsletter. They are printed to help the reader further appreciate the limitations of science. It is widely believed that science can prove or disprove almost anything. In his reply to the student's question, Brand gives evidence that science can do little more than provide supportive evidence for historical events.

Dear Dr. Brand:
    As a senior in Geology, I'm taking a stratigraphy and sedimentation course. As a Christian who believes in Christ as Lord and the authority of the Scriptures including the Noachian Flood, I desire to be "salt" to my fellow students by presenting a flood origin for the Navajo Sandstones. Our class will debate the eolian vs. shallow marine origin. Hopefully I can present a third--Noachian Flood origin.
    If you can help me in any way it would be greatly appreciated.
    In His Service.

Brand Replies

There are several important points to consider in deciding what approach to take on this topic. We wish you God's guidance and blessing as you try to open the eyes of your colleagues to see that traditional geologic theories are not the only reasonable possibilities.
As we consider the evidence, and try to work out geological flood models, I feel that it is important to analyze carefully what that evidence says, and what it does not say. For example, let us look at the Navajo Sandstone, and try to decide what kind of evidence would tell us if it was a flood deposit. It is often helpful to begin by trying to think of all of the possible models, or theories, that could perhaps explain a particular phenomenon. Here are several possible models for the Navajo Sandstone:

Deposited over hundreds or thousands of years in a normal desert environment.
Deposited rapidly by wind during a period of unusually persistent high winds, but otherwise not in a catastrophic setting.
Much of the geologic column was deposited rapidly and catastrophically, and the Navajo Sandstone was one formation that was deposited rapidly by wind. However, God was not necessarily involved, and this rapid deposition had nothing to do with Noah's flood.
Deposited very rapidly by wind, during the latter part of the Noachian flood, during a period of lowered water level and persistent high winds.
Deposited over hundreds or thousands of years by water, as the water slowly or periodically carried sand into the area.
Deposited rapidly in an area with persistent relatively rapid water currents and a plentiful sand supply. Otherwise not in a geologic setting that was especially catastrophic.
Much of the geologic column was deposited rapidly and catastrophically, and the Navajo Sandstone was one formation that was deposited rapidly by water. However, God was not necessarily involved, and this rapid deposition had nothing to do with Noah's flood.
Deposited rapidly underwater, by the persistent water currents during the Noachian flood. The sand-sized particles were not necessarily produced during the flood, but came from extensive beds of sand that were part of the pre-flood world, and were transported into their new location during the flood.

    Some of us are convinced, because of our confidence in Scripture, that the correct model is either #4 or #8, and #8 seems more likely than #4. (However, we cannot rule out #4 without adequate evidence, since we don't know what all was going on during the flood.) This belief can serve as a stimulus for successful research efforts, such as the study on fossil footprints in the Coconino Sandstone.
    When we try to communicate to others our reasons for believing in model #8, it is important to be very careful, or we get ourselves into trouble. If we can produce compelling evidence that the Navajo Sandstone was deposited underwater, is that evidence for the flood? Not really, because that evidence could also be explained equally well by models #5, 6 or 7. Evidence that can be explained by two or more models cannot properly be used as evidence for any one of those models. If it fits two models equally well, it cannot tell us which model is correct. We have to have evidence that fits one model, and contradicts the other model.
    Now, what if we find evidence that indicates that the Navajo was deposited underwater and was deposited very rapidly? What does that tell us? That evidence would eliminate models #1-5, but it would still be consistent with models #6-8. We still have not shown that it was part of Noah's flood. If we then find convincing evidence that much of the rest of the geologic column was also deposited catastrophically, we would have to come down to models #7 and #8. What scientific evidence would tell us which of these two models is correct? Many scientists will say quite dogmatically that science has eliminated #8, but others recognize that science has not, and in fact never can demonstrate that God was not involved in influencing earth history. Science also can never demonstrate that God was involved in influencing earth history. The choice between models #7 and 8, or between models #3 and 4 will always be a matter of faith. My work on footprints, or other evidence that we can gather can never properly be used as proof of Noah's flood, because all it can do is help us choose between models of slow deposition over eons of time, or catastrophic models with rapid deposition.
    Taking all of this into consideration, I would like to suggest an approach that you might take, if it seems reasonable to you. To directly propose model #8, deposition of the Navajo Sandstone in the Noachian flood, could only be supported on religious grounds, and would arouse so much prejudice from many science teachers that it would be difficult to carry on a constructive discussion of this issue. This direct approach may seem appealing, but in many cases it does not have a beneficial effect in the long run. I suggest that it is better to find as much evidence as you can find in the literature for water deposition, and/or rapid deposition of the Navajo Sandstone — anything that raises questions about the traditional model (e.g., why are there no fossils in the Navajo Sandstone and many similar sandstones, except footprints?). Then perhaps briefly discuss the general trend to catastrophic explanations in geology, and then propose a model of rapid accumulation of the Navajo Sandstone underwater and suggest some types of research that could help to test your model. This approach will show that you are interested in using science to evaluate various hypotheses. If the question then comes up whether your model has any relation to the book of Genesis, you do not need to be afraid to answer.
    Also, if in discussing this with individuals or groups, we sense that there is an openness to new ideas, we can be more bold in suggesting the type of rapid geological action implied in the Biblical flood story as a reasonable explanation for some of the geological data. I find this indirect approach often more beneficial than a direct presentation of flood geology in a crowd where the discussion is apt to be dominated by the strong prejudices of a few. Of course, this would not apply to a gathering of Christians, or a situation where it is expected that Creation or the flood will be discussed.

Work on Fossil Forest Continues

    The summer of 1980 presented further opportunity for Harold Coffin to continue his studies of the Yellowstone Fossil Forest. Coffin, a member of GRI since1964, has devoted much effort to examining this geological problem. The fossil forest is a series of successive layers of upright trees imbedded in volcanic material. If one does a tree-ring count of the largest trees in each layer, an apparent age of over 16,000 years is determined. This area has been cited by some to show that a short chronology for the time after the flood is not tenable. Coffin in examining this area has provided other explanations that are more acceptable with a short time span. For a review of previous findings, see his articles in Spectrum 9(4):42-53 (1979) and Origins 6(2):71-82 (1979).
    The data collected this summer in collaboration with Mike Arct and Arthur Chadwick, both of Loma Linda University, support an allochthonous (drift) origin of these trees.
    In their examination of the rings of several hundred trees, apparent agreement of growth ring patterns in successive layers has been found. These data, if substantiated by further research, strongly suggest that the successive forest growth model may be inadequate, and a more rapid depositional model as Coffin postulates may be indicated.
    Coffin is presently preparing a symposium volume in which he hopes to synthesize the known data of this forest into a consistent pattern.

Geoscience Reports - Winter 1981, No. 1

Editor --- Richard D. Tkachuck
Associate Editor --- Katherine Ching

Subscription requests, correspondence, and notices of change of address should be sent to: Geoscience Reports, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350.

Geoscience Reports is a newsletter published by the Geoscience Research Institute to present current happenings at the Institute as well as notes of general interest which deal with creation/ evolution issues. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Institute.