The Bible and Geology (and science in general)

Yesterday, I preached a sermon that addressed the role of secular knowledge.

The video is here:

Sermon at Green Lake Church, June 17, 2017

I also wrote a manuscript, but in this case, I think the spoken sermon is far more pointed and captures what I was intending to say, than the written sermon. In short: I referenced the Bible’s description of Solomon’s wisdom for which he is so celebrated. His wisdom was entirely secular. First, it was knowledge of the natural world–what we would call science (1 Kings 4:29). Second it was political or judicial (1 Kings 3:16). Kings in the region sent ambassadors to “go to school” under Solomon. The ambassadors were not coming for sermons. They were coming for lessons in natural science and political science. Once in Jerusalem they would be exposed to the spiritual treasures of Israel, but they came because of Solomon’s secular knowledge–knowledge that could be validated or falsified by direct experience.

Today, we who are believers can hope to gain a hearing among nonbelievers if we demonstrate solid competence in areas of secular knowledge.  When we demonstrate incompetence in areas of secular knowledge, we undermine our overall credibility. Why would someone listen to us speak about God, the highest of all truth claims, if we demonstrate stubborn resistance to truth in areas open to investigation and direct observation.

This is where we stand as a church in regard to our current “Adventist geology.” Adventist geology is demonstrably false. Noah’s Flood did not create the Phanerozoic portion of the geologic column. (“Phanerozoic” refers to the portion of the geologic column in which fossils are abundant.)

Noah’s Ark in the Navajo

The picture below was sent to me by Tom Anderson, one of the participants in our 2017 Talking Rocks Tour. He noted that he had been so preoccupied with looking for dinosaur tracks that he failed to see the obvious feature on the sky line. It was only after he arrived home and was reviewing his photos that he realized he had a picture of Noah’s Ark.  Hope you can join us for the next tour, this fall or next spring. Who knows what we might find.  🙂

2017_Geo_Trip (22) groupShot (1)

Stories within Stories (and mysteries aplenty)

I came across this rock east of Austin, Nevada.


I don’t recall ever seeing anything just like it. This was at a small quarry and the material appeared to be useful for fill or maybe road surfacing. My first impression was this was fossiliferous limestone. However, when I looked closely, the features that I imagined to be shell fragments gave no evidence of being shells. Instead, they appeared to be shards of limestone in a matrix of gritty limestone. The outcrop was a limestone breccia. (I spent a little while scouring the area looking for fossils. I did not find any fossils.)

There is a story here. My read: Limey mud was deposited. This requires still water, not flowing water. The mud was exposed to air and through evaporation began hardening into limestone–a process that would work its way from the surface downward. After the surface (millimeters to a centimeter) hardened, a flood shattered the surface and swept the mixture of limey mud and limestone shards together into another slack water area where the material settled. Again, it was exposed to air and through evaporation began again the process of turning into the rock we see today.

Polemic Note: When Sean Pittman writes that the carbonate interdune deposits (these are limestones containing varying proportions of sand) form by “settling” from the waters of the flood he is ignoring the limey breccias that are sometimes found on these interdune deposits. These breccias are evaporite deposits–skins of hard carbonate that formed over soft mud, skins that there then broken up by wind action and pushed to the lee side of the interdune surface where they resumed their drying and hardening. This is not readily reconciled with Flood geology.

One Limit on Bias in Geology–Money

It’s important to realize that geology is not purely theoretical. Because of the centrality of historical interpretation to the practice of geology, we might be tempted to think that geology is as susceptible to bias as political history. However, geology has multiple checks on the power of bias. One of those checks is mining. Mining puts geological theory to the rude and ruthless test of money. Is this mine worth the investment? When the hole is dug and the ore is assayed, the theory turns into hard, cold fact–you make money or don’t. Either way, the mine might become a photo shoot.

IMG_20170604_183728  This structure is the head of a tram that carried ore from mines on Treasure Hill above Pioche, Nevada, to a mill down in the valley. In 1928 it cost 6 cents a ton to deliver a ton of ore to the mill via this aerial tram.

Geology, not mere opinion



One of the nice things about geology is you can see it. Your first or second interpretation may need to be modified after further investigation, but concrete, tangible reality exists, and we can return to it repeatedly for more information. In geology, opinions frequently can be corrected by facts, facts that can be verified or falsified by direct observation. This high regard for concrete, tangible reality–stuff you can see and touch–is central in our Talking Rocks Tours.

The picture is of Basin and Range country in central Nevada.

Tracks in the Navajo

I camped for a couple of nights at the top of Hog Canyon Road outside Kanab, Utah, to do some geological prospecting.


Specifically, I was looking for protosuchus burrows. (This animal was an ancient version of crocodile.) I found some anomalous structures in the sandstone that might be burrows, but nothing with the kind of definition I was hoping for.


However, I noticed the sand around my camp was covered with tracks made by bugs and lizards.

Then up on the outcrop where I was prospecting, I found this rock with tracks reminiscent of the tracks in the sand.


Not exactly dinosaur tracks, but still pretty cool.

These tracks in the Navajo Sandstone tell us that when these sand dunes were created, there were living animals present running around on them. The animals in this ancient neighborhood ranged in size from worms to the size of horses judging from the tracks they left. (I mention horses only for size comparison. There are no modern mammal tracks in the Navajo.)

From the sublime to . . . well . . . the mud.

Talking Rocks Tour 2017: Buckskin Gulch on day five. A fantastic hike. One group did the full twenty-mile loop. Others did about five miles. Notice the person (the very tiny person) in the photo. The geology lessons we saw in this slot canyon were dramatic.

The walls of the canyon towered over us. There were flood deposits that spoke of cycles of deposition and erosion inside the canyon–obviously more recent than the formation of the canyon itself. Note this package of debris wedged into the canyon above Bryan’s head. Think of the force of the water required to pack all that woody debris so tightly that long after the water was gone, the debris dam remains.


I was endlessly fascinated by the mud on the canyon floor. Ripple patterns indicating different rates of water movement, different viscosities of the water (due to mud suspension), channel shape, and who knows what else. In addition to ripple patterns we saw mud cracks, mud curls, mud imprinted with dog paws and human feet, mud sprinkled with red sand from a passing wind storm above the canyon.


We had mud inside our shoes, mud on our clothes, mud everywhere. It was lovely.