Inaccurate Definitions

Inadequate and Contradictory Definitions and Descriptions of Actualism and Other Terms in Oard and Reed (2009)

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

June 30, 2017

A Few Examples from the Deficient Glossary in Oard and Reed (2009)

If geologists and young-Earth creationists (YECs) are ever going to effectively communicate their ideas to each other, they must agree on appropriate definitions for actualism, uniformitarianism and other geologic terms. One of the major problems with Oard and Reed (2009) is that this document misdefines or defines terms differently than the mainstream geologic literature. In particular, Oard and Reed (2009) contains a glossary with definitions that are often deficient or inaccurate. In other cases, key YEC terms (such as diluvialism and supernaturalism) are not even included in the Oard and Reed (2009) glossary. "Diluvialist" is present (Oard and Reed 2009, p. 263), but the definition is woefully inadequate:

“a person who accepts the historical reality of the Genesis Flood as a presupposition to earth science studies.”

Under this poor and vague definition, the famous catastrophist Georges Cuvier would be considered a “diluvialist.” Yet, Cuvier was a “heretic” by modern young-Earth creationist (YEC) standards. He advocated an ancient Earth and believed in multiple worldwide floods in the Earth's past, where the last one was Noah's (Young 1982, p. 50). Since the Oard and Reed (2009) definition also does not indicate that Earth science studies need to be global rather than regional or local, or that all or nearly all of the Earth's sedimentary rocks need to have been deposited by the Flood, this poor definition of diluvialist could include individuals that believe that Genesis teaches an historical and geologically significant, but regional, Noah's Flood. That is, this vague definition of diluvialist could include theistic evolutionist and evangelical Christian Glenn Morton, who is frequently criticized in Oard and Reed (2009). I don't think that Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed would want Mr. Morton in their “diluvialist” group. Furthermore, the definition says nothing about natural or supernatural processes being involved in the “Genesis Flood.” Was the supernatural involved? If not, why not? If so, how common were miracles and what's the scientific evidence for them? The Bible claims that God miraculously parted the sea for Moses (Exodus 14) and that Jesus walked on water (Mark 6:45-52), so why wouldn't YECs expect God to miraculously create and move the Flood waters? Now, YECs might shy away from advocating miracles if these miracles are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. However, a total lack of biblical references to a post-Flood "ice age", asteroids impacting Mars, Earth and the other planets during the Flood and many other supposed events does not keep most YECs from using their imaginations and advocating their existence. Clearly, young-Earth creationism is hopelessly inconsistent and subjective.

Inadequate Definition of Actualism in Oard and Reed (2009) Glossary

Oard (2009a, p. 114) accuses me of not providing a precise definition of actualism in my 1999 essay. However, I would argue that the discussions and examples in my 1999 essay were suitable and far more detailed than the brief two sentence “precise” glossary definition of actualism given in Oard and Reed (2009, p. 262). Because Oard (2009a) wants more details from me on actualism, I further describe what actualism is and is not in “Actualism (Modern Uniformitarianism) and its Assumptions.”

Rather than appropriately basing their definition of actualism on the geologic literature (e.g., Dott and Batten 1988, p. 39; Strahler 1999 and more recent references) and how geologists actually perform their field and laboratory work, the Oard and Reed (2009, p. 262) definition of actualism reads:

“the modification of the principle of uniformitarianism that accepts the rates of some processes might have been higher at times in the past, or that environmental conditions may have been different. Although these processes are not observed today, they still must be 'plausible natural process'“[sic].

Although glossaries are nice, sometimes complex concepts (such as actualism) cannot be adequately summarized in two sentence definitions. Although Oard (2008b, p. 6) and Oard (2009a, p. 111) derided my “definition” (description) of actualism in my 1999 essay as "unusual" and weak, he and Dr. Reed obviously thought enough of it to try to incorporate some of its concepts into their grammatically awkward glossary definition. Overall, however, their definition of actualism is still woefully inadequate and inaccurate. For example, Oard and Reed (2009, p. 262) claim that actualism is a “modification” of uniformitarianism. While actualism is a modification of Lyell uniformitarianism, I don't see geologists widely proclaiming that actualism is a modification of modern uniformitarianism. To the contrary, most geologists essentially equate modern uniformitarianism with actualism (Judson and Richardson 1995, p. 2; Mintz 1977, p. 5, 7; McGeary et al. 2004, p. 190, etc.), and that is the approach that I take. When Oard and Reed (2009, p. 262) state that natural “processes are not observed today”, this is not always correct. Under actualism, geologists do not expect modern analogs for every ancient process that formed the geologic record, but we still look for modern analogs and use them if they are found. That is, depending on the situation, modern analogs may or may not exist. Furthermore, while the Oard and Reed (2009) definition of actualism correctly states that the rates of some processes may have been higher in the past than today, why couldn't the rate of a natural process (such as erosion) have been lower at a given time in the past or varied in intensity over geologic time? Why is the possibility of lower and variable rates not mentioned in the Oard and Reed (2009) definition? In reality, the geologic record is the product of both natural catastrophes and long and slow natural processes. Furthermore, the rate of a natural process at a given location could have been much higher or lower at a given time in the past.

Inaccurate Definition of Modern Uniformitarianism in Oard and Reed (2009): Modern Uniformitarianism (Actualism) does NOT Require Modern Analogs

Rather than equating actualism with modern uniformitarianism as is commonly done in geology textbooks and other geology documents (Judson and Richardson 1995, p. 2; Mintz 1977, p. 5, 7; McGeary et al. 2004, p. 190, etc.), Oard and Reed (2009, p. 266) derive a separate and inaccurate definition for modern uniformitarianism that is significantly different than their definition of actualism:

“the fundamental doctrine of modern geology that believes that the rock record can be interpreted by reference to observed modern processes. In its earlier forms, advocates insisted on a strict uniformity of rates as well as processes.”

So, under this definition, what would Oard and Reed (2009) say to the “uniformitarians” if no “observed modern processes” (modern analogues) could be found to interpret an outcrop? Statements in Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 13), Silvestru (2009, p. 47) and elsewhere in Oard and Reed (2009) indicate that these YECs believe that “modern uniformitarianism” requires the presence of modern analogs to function. As further discussed below, the authors of Oard and Reed (2009) have deliberately set up invalid and inconsistent strawperson definitions of “uniformitarianism” and “actualism” that are so flawed that they hope that people will readily reject them and embrace young-Earth creationism. A common tactic by some individuals is to try to discredit their opponents' procedures by misdefining the procedures and weighing them down with unnecessary, outdated and easily refuted "requirements." The Oard and Reed (2009) definition of modern uniformitarianism is also not any better than the following extremely vague definition given in Oard (2005, p. 167):

“The principle that processes similar to those observed today are responsible for the rocks and fossils.”

Contrary to the definitions in Oard and Reed (2009, p. 266) and Oard (2005, p. 167), and discussions in Oard (1997), Oard (2009a, p. 113-114), Silvestru (2009, p. 47) and elsewhere in Oard and Reed (2009), modern uniformitarianism (= actualism) does not require the use of “observed modern processes” (modern analogs) to derive explanations for the geologic record. The traditional saying "The presence is the key to the past" is not an absolute rule. Certainly, geologists using modern uniformitarianism will always seek modern analogs to better understand past events. However, if modern analogs are not available, geologists can still decipher past environments by carefully looking for clues in the outcrops and using logical deductions, setting up experimental replicas, performing other laboratory experiments, studying conditions on other planets and moons, and/or through computer modeling. The gross mischaracterization of modern uniformitarianism in Oard and Reed (2009) is clearly refuted by the following statements from YEC Austin (1979, p. 39), where he summarizes the long ago realizations of Shantser (1970), Dott and Batten (1971) and Valentine (1973):

“The geologist's technique in deciphering ancient processes, they [Shantser (1970), Dott and Batten (1971) and Valentine (1973)] affirm, relies not only on analogies with products from experimental replicas and other non-geological systems, and on logical deductions from theories or scientific laws. Proper interpretations of ancient processes should, they say, involve complex techniques of inference, not just simple one-to-one association of products of modern and ancient processes. By using complex inference techniques, the geologist retains the maximum flexibility when conception of which is probably the crucial step in the act of scientific discovery.” [my emphasis]

Yet, Oard (1997, pp. 25, 38, 55, 84, etc.), Oard (2009a, p. 114), Oard (2009b, p. 138) and elsewhere in Oard and Reed (2009) contain many examples of trying to discredit pre-Pleistocene iceberg scour marks and other features in the geologic record by invoking fallacious strawperson definitions of modern uniformitarianism that obviously involve “simple one-to-one associations of products of modern and ancient processes.” Contrary to what Oard and Reed (2009) suggest, geologists do not believe that ancient geological processes should be cookie-cutter replicas of modern processes. That is, if modern analogs are somewhat larger, smaller, or different than ancient examples, that does not invalidate actualism. Just as long as the laws of chemistry and physics are not violated, actualism can even survive without modern analogs.

The following are some additional quotations from a few common geology textbooks that Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed should review. These quotations argue that modern uniformitarianism does not require and cannot always develop hypotheses based on “observed modern processes”:

Levin (2010, p. 19) states:

“At the same time, we must be constantly aware that in the past, the rates of change and intensity of processes often varied from those we are accustomed to seeing today, and that some events of long ago simply have no modern counterpart.” [my emphasis]

Press and Siever (2001, p. 4) conclude:

“We now know that many important geologic processes are not observable in action today, yet the evidence that they took place is undeniable. For example, there have been asteroid impacts that no human witnessed but that greatly modified the Earth's crust and climate in the past. Neither has humankind seen the vast volcanic outpourings of the past in which lava covered areas of continental dimensions and volcanic gases poisoned the global atmosphere [i.e., the end of the Permian].”

Strahler (1999, p. 215) argues:

“Mainstream geologists do not claim that the world of today contains examples of recent formation of everything that has ever happened in all of geologic time.”

Furthermore, the natural processes that occur today may not always be detected in the geologic record either because they left no discernible evidence or they did not always occur in the past. For example, the widespread presence of subtropical vegetation at high latitudes during at least parts of the Eocene indicates that glaciers and glacial processes may have been totally absent from the Earth at that time.

If Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed are really familiar with these statements from Strahler (1999), the references in Austin (1979) and even more recent textbooks that are used to train future geologists, then what justification do they have for arguing that modern uniformitarianism requires the use of “observed modern processes” to interpret the geologic record? Since modern analogs don't exist for banded iron formations, how would geologists ever understand the formation of these rocks without relying on laboratory experiments and computer modeling? How can Oard (2009a, p. 113) dare to claim that YECs “understand uniformitarian arguments quite well” when the geology literature shows that he and other YECs commonly do not? I think that Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed in Oard and Reed (2009) are simply attempting to discredit modern uniformitarianism by weighing it down with an unnecessary assumption for modern analogs so that they and other YECs can more easily ridicule it whenever no obvious modern analogs are available.

Examples of Mistaken Demands for Modern Analogs in Mr. Oard's Documents

Oard (1997) and Oard and Reed (2009) contain many erroneous claims about modern uniformitarianism (actualism) requiring modern analogs. Mr. Oard’s mischaracterizations of actualism are classic examples of strawperson fallacies, where he attempts to put invalid restrictions on modern uniformitarianism (actualism) so that it can be more easily ridiculed and somehow made to look inferior to Flood geology, a 6,000 year old Earth and stories involving a talking snake and magic fruit trees. For example, Oard (2009a, p. 114) still cannot accept the fact that iceberg scour marks, debris flow deposits, and other features in pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits may have had different sizes or poorer preservation than the same types of features in Pleistocene and modern glacial deposits. He refers to my protests against Oard (1997) in my 1999 essay as “special pleading” because he just can't accept the idea that other geologists and I don't expect pre-Pleistocene glacial deposits to be cookie-cutter replicas of modern glacial features. Oard (2009a, p. 114) also calls my reliance on actualism as an “excuse” when he states:

“He [Dr. Henke in his 1999 essay] (p. 69) uses the same excuse to avoid the absence of huge debris flow deposits in pre-Pleistocene strata, while large debris flows are common in Pleistocene and modern sediments.”

Mr. Oard is probably referring to this paragraph from my 1999 essay:

“According to Oard ([1997], p. 38), large debris flows are common in modern sediments, but are nearly absent in the pre-Pleistocene record. Oard ([1997], p. 38) claims that this observation somehow violates 'uniformitarianism.' Oard has created an invalid 'no lose' situation for himself. If modern debris flows are generally larger than ancient analogs, he can attack the strawperson doctrine of Lyell uniformitarianism and claim that modern deposits are not good analogies of ancient ones. If the modern deposits happened to be generally absent or smaller than the ancient examples, Oard could always invoke Noah's Flood as the unique cause of the larger scale, ancient features. In reality, Oard is simply failing to realize that ancient deep marine debris flows would most likely be subducted or deeply buried under more marine sediments rather than obducted and preserved on continents where geologists could readily find them.”

As long as no natural laws were violated, it is very possible that debris flow deposits, iceberg scour marks or other surviving pre-Pleistocene glacial features could be significantly smaller or larger than those in Pleistocene and modern deposits. Certainly, Mr. Oard should know that ice bergs and their scouring marks, debris flows and other features are going to greatly vary in size depending on local conditions and how well the features are preserved. Differences in the sizes of modern and ancient sedimentary features do not eliminate pre-Pleistocene glaciations, invalidate the investigative approach of actualism or in any way indicate that supernatural events or a nonglacial global Noah's Flood was involved. Rather than trying to understand the diversity of features in the geologic record, Mr. Oard obviously mistakenly believes that he can somehow promote Flood geology and invalidate actualism and pre-Pleistocene glaciations by relying on inconsequential differences between modern and pre-Pleistocene deposits.

There are also numerous examples in Oard (1997), where he mistakenly believes that actualism demands that features found in modern environments must also occur in ancient environments (e.g., pockmarks on the ocean floor; Oard, 1997, p. 26) or that actualism somehow requires that that every process that produced a rock type in the geologic record must also be present in modern environments (e.g., thick dolostone beds, Oard, 1997, p. 28). Strahler (1999), Levin (2010), Press and Siever (2001), and other geologic literature clearly show that Mr. Oard is only punching a strawperson in a fruitless and desperate attempt to attack actualism.

Oard (2009a) Inconsistently Uses His Own Definition of Uniformitarianism

As stated above, I along with many other geologists (e.g., Judson and Richardson 1995, p. 2; Mintz 1977, p. 5, 7; McGeary et al. 2004, p. 190) equate actualism with modern uniformitarianism. In contrast, Oard and Reed (2009, pp. 262, 266) went to the unusual effort to create incompatible and erroneous definitions for these two terms. After deriving separate definitions for actualism and uniformitarianism, Oard (2009a, p. 111, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, etc.) repeatedly ignores his own definitions and uses the words actualism and uniformitarianism interchangeably when referring to me and my work! Although Oard (2009a, pp. 113-114) recognizes that I endorse actualism as the basis of modern geology, Oard (2009a) refers to me as having an “uniformitarian position” (p. 111), that Rampino is my “fellow uniformitarian” (p. 119), and he states “uniformitarian scientists, including Henke” (p. 120). These references to me would be fine, if Oard and Reed (2009) had properly defined actualism and modern uniformitarianism as synonyms as other geologists and I do. However, how can I be an “uniformitarian” under Mr. Oard's definition of the term in Oard and Reed (2009, p. 266) when I clearly stated in my 1999 essay that the geologic record is not always “interpreted by reference to observed modern processes”? The unwillingness of Oard (2009a) to consistently rely on the very glossary definitions that he helped to create firmly shows how muddled his thinking is about geology and how little confidence he really has in his own definitions of geologic terms.

References (Note: Lettering with reference years is consistent with the references in other essays at this website.)

Austin, S.A. 1979. “Uniformitarianism- A Doctrine that Needs Rethinking”, The Compass, v. 56, n. 2, pp. 29-45.

Dott, R.H. and R. L. Batten. 1971. Evolution of the Earth, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 649pp.

Dott, R.H. and R. L. Batten. 1988. Evolution of the Earth, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 684pp.

Judson, S. and S.M. Richardson. 1995. Earth: An Introduction to Geologic Change, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 551pp.

Levin, H. 2010. The Earth through Time, 9th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 606pp.

McGeary, D., C.C. Plummer, and D.H. Carlson. 2004. Physical Geology: Earth Revealed, 5th edition, McGraw Hill, Boston, 574pp.

Mintz, L.W. 1977. Historical Geology: The Science of a Dynamic Earth, 2nd edition, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 588pp.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2005. The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, USA, 199pp.

Oard, M.J. 2008b. "The Eocene Ice Age - Example of a Geological Challenge," Creation Matters, v. 13, n. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 1, 6-8.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. 2009b. "Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?", chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Press, F. and R. Siever. 2001. Understanding Earth, 3rd edition, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, USA, 625pp.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. "A Context for the Flood Geology Debate," chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Shantser, Y.V. 1970. “On the Methodology of Research in Historical Geology”, Geotectonics, v. 4, pp. 69-74.

Silvestru, E. 2009. “Karst and the Age of the World”, chapter 4 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 45-61.

Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.

Valentine, J.W. 1973. Evolutionary Paleoecology of the Marine Biosphere, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 511pp.

Young, D.A. 1982. Christianity & The Age of the Earth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 188pp.