|
This month, an episode of History Channel's series "How the Earth Was Made" was devoted to catastrophic flood origins for the Grand Canyon, a theory that has been promoted by creationist geologists for decades. The theory is attributed to a geologist at a community college in Phoenix, Dr. John Douglass, who presented his analysis at a symposium on the "Origin and Evolution" of the Canyon in the year 2000.
Details of the Breached Dam Theory, which released enormous amounts of lake water trapped east of the Canyon by the East Kaibab Upwarp of the Colorado Plateau, were given long before (1994) in Dr. Steven A. Austin's treatise on the Grand Canyon, "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe." (13) Chapter 5 includes probable shoreline maps of an ancient lake, produced by Dr. Ed Holroyd, an RMCF member, which show the enormous drainage basin (30,000 square miles) just east of the Grand Canyon. The hypothesized lake was dubbed "Canyonlands Lake" by Austin. The creationist theory recognizes that after the Great Flood of Noah, the giant basin east of the Grand Canyon could have been filled by huge lakes caused by the natural dam formed by the Kaibab Upwarp (Figure 1). Catastrophic release of more water than Lake Michigan would have drained through a dam breach caused by overtopping of this dam and/or piping through the dam. The theory relies on the existence of other large-scale flood relicts such as the Grand Coulee and the Columbia Gorge of Washington State which were formed by the catastrophic drainage of Glacial Lake Missoula. Breached-Dam Theory of Grand Canyon Formation
The breached-dam theory of Canyon formation is consistent with evidence of ancient lakes just east of the watershed; for example, the Bidahochi Formation, thought to have been deposited in "Lake Hopi" on the site of what is now the canyon of the Little Colorado River. The Bidahochi contains laminated silt and greenish clay layers with freshwater fish fossils and beaver remains.
Further evidence is given by landforms known to result from accelerated drainage activity, including underfit streams and the incised meanders of the San Juan River, which form only under conditions of large magnitude discharge. We also find relict landforms such as the sapping structures in side canyons and stable cliff structures with noticeable lack of talus, where the benches at cliff bases have apparently been swept clean by flooding. The cliffs are characterized by red mud stain accumulations, indicating that erosion today is extremely slow. According to Austin (13-102), Pliocene sediments associated with the delta of the Colorado River (Bousse Formation near the CA-AZ border and the Imperial Formation of the Salton Trough area) contain deltaic deposits which appear abruptly, and pebbles beneath the delta have local sources and indicate there was no large river in the area before the deltaic sands and mud was deposited. Therefore, the Pliocene establishment of the lower Colorado River seems confirmed. Taken together, we have significant evidence that Grand Canyon and the region upstream have been eroded chiefly by catastrophic agents.
When I visited the Grand Canyon in the early 90's, the politically correct story told by the Rangers at the Visitor Center was the so-called "precocious gully theory." Before the Canyon was formed, the Colorado River was thought to flow southward. The story was that a gully was cut eastward from the Hualapai drainage (western side of the Kaibab Upwarp ), which eventually eroded through the Upwarp and captured the Colorado River and took it westward through the gully, which became the Grand Canyon. This model allows for both an ancient river and a more recent canyon, which coincides with the prevailing dogma.
So what took geologists so long to come around to a flood model of Canyon formation? The concept of rapid breaching of the Kaibab Upwarp by drainage from ancient lakes has a long history. In fact, it is the oldest explanation of the formation of Grand Canyon, being contained in Havasupai Indian legends. The Indians still tell the story of how the Canyon was formed after the world was covered by a Great Flood. (Many such Flood traditions exist throughout ancient cultures worldwide.)
The following history of the development of the breached-dam theory is found on page 109 of Austin's book with further comments in italics.
* The concept was first documented by J.S. Newberry in 1861 (1).
* Hints followed in the work of Eliot Blackwelder in 1934 (2). According to Douglass, Blackwelder's insights have been unfortunately "downplayed" in the last half century. [True, except by creationists.].
* Geologic evidence of a large lake in northeastern Arizona ("Hopi Lake") was provided by Howel Williams in 1936, (3) which contains the Bidahochi Formation described by John Douglass in the History Channel account as the remains of an ancient lake which was the source of the initial flood waters. (Douglass does not mention Hopi Lake or Williams' discovery).
* As described by G.C. Bowles in 1978, tectonic activity was thought to have blocked the flow of the Colorado River, creating a large lake behind the Kaibab plateau, followed by piping failure. (4)
* Creationists were suggesting catastrophic drainage models beginning in the 1960's. Bernard E. Northrup proposed in 1968 that erosion of Grand Canyon was caused by release of trapped glacial melt waters in the post-Flood period centuries after Noah's Flood. His theory was updated in the First International Conference on Creationism, 1986, Proceedings, Vol.2 p.147.
* One of the most noteworthy early creationist statements of the breached dam theory appeared in the writings of Clifford L. Burdick in 1974.(5)
* Post Flood ponding of water east of Grand Canyon behind a tectonic upwarp was suggested as the cause leading to cutting the canyon by Steven A. Austin and John H. Whitmore in 1986. (6)
* Edmond W. Holroyd, III, recognized in 1986-7 that a lake bigger than one of the Great Lakes could be contained upstream of the Grand Canyon if the canyon were blocked at approximately the 5600 foot elevation (7)
* The breached-dam theory was described in 1988 by Steven A. Austin in a field guidebook used by ICR-sponsored rafters through the canyon. (8) The guidebook was updated in 1990 when I traveled through the Canyon with Dr. Austin on the ICR field trip.
* Later, after reading Austin's 1988 Field guidebook, Walter T. Brown, Jr., offered specific details to the theory, placing the lake boundary at 5700 ft. elevation, and naming the lake "Grand Lake."(9)
* Interesting field evidences for catastrophic drainage of lakes . . .were documented by Edmond W. Holroyd, III, in 1990. (10) The paper displays the boundaries of a hypothesized post-glacial lake comparable in size to Lake Superior at elevation of 5600 ft., and suggests that the lack of talus near its shoreline cliffs could be due to wave action in an ancient lake.
* A summary of some of these theories was published by E.L. Williams, J.R. Meyer, and G.W. Wolfrom in 1992. (11)
* Further comments were provided by Michael J. Oard in 1993. (12)
* Dr. Austin's book mentioned above containing a detailed dam-breach scenario for the formation of the canyon, and "Canyonlands Lake," was published in 1994. (13)
* There began a gradual increase in the acceptability of a catastrophic model of origins for the canyon, as exemplified by the paper by John Douglass, presented at a Symposium on Canyon origins in 2000 (14). The History Channel documentary gives Douglass full credit, calling the idea "His Own Theory" and "His Spillover Theory."
Only one of the many sources of documentation of the flood origin of Grand Canyon was considered in the paper by Douglass --the Blackwelder paper in 1934. In his paper, Douglass claims to have "reinvented" the theory in 1992 without knowledge of Blackwelder's work. What about the other dozen or so? Decades of creationist research, including Austin's landmark book, were ignored. One can only conjecture as to the reason(s), such as:
(1) Entrenched uniformitarianism, like that which caused the rejection of. J. Harlan Bretz's theory of the flood origin for the Scablands of Washington State. His ideas were finally accepted some forty years later, after many of the objectors passed away. (After all, a flood model might imply Noah's Flood, which had been censored from the field of geology since Darwin's day.)
(2) Perhaps creationists are considered religious fanatics and cannot be trusted to do good geology, or maybe because Austin's work was published by the Institute for Creation Research, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal.
(3) A lack of evidence for any ancient lakes upstream of the Colorado River ("Canyonlands Lake"). (Only the remains of Hopi Lake has adequate documentation, but it does not straddle the Colorado River.)
(4) Perhaps Douglass wanted to give his own name to the hypothesized lake, which he called "Lake Bidahochi", after the lake sediments found in Lake Hopi/Painted Desert region, where the breach could have first started, and which is now thought to contain the canyon of the Little Colorado. So now we have three names for the lake.
(5) Dr. Holroyd has stated (interview 12/22/09) that the dam is elevated a quarter-mile above the highest lake level, and that the spillover point does not coincide with the Canyon, but would be to the north near Vermillion cliffs. As yet, there is no explanation for why the flood took the path it did.
Based on analysis of a more recent flood formation on the Mojave River, CA, Douglass argues in his paper that the absence of lake sediments along the Colorado does not necessarily mean they were not there, and could have been lost during the rapid draining event and its aftermath His model .also recognizes recent analyses of the Bousse Formation (Colorado River delta in lower CA) which shows strontium concentrations which are consistent with inflows of the Colorado River, and give an event date of 6Ma (the accepted date of Canyon formation). Douglass places the dam/spillover point near Grandview Point on the South Rim, where he believes the western slope of the Kaibab Plateau was sufficient to initiate incision, being 1500m above base level at Lake Mead below. As the channel was catastrophically downcut, it would have worked its way back via "headword" erosion similar to what we see occurring today at Niagara Falls, as shown in animated graphics of the History Channel documentary.
Crucial to establishing validity of the lake spillover theory was the need to establish a date for the lake that is consistent with consensus dates for the formation of the canyon.. In the documentary, Douglass dramatically discovers some fresh water mollusk "fossils" in the lake sediments, which he claims date the lake bed at six million years. If one looks closely at the video, you can see that the clay is unconsolidated dirt, and the "fossils" are pristine and unmineralized, implying a much more recent burial.
Further evidence for the time frame was alleged in the documentary by John Pederson of Utah State, who dated sand deposits at Lees Ferry using luminescence (OSL) techniques and determined the cutting rate to be 1" per century, which is claimed to be consistent with cutting the canyon in about 5.5 My. This is very confusing from two standpoints: a) Sand sediments at Lees Ferry have nothing to do with the canyon, because it is upstream of the canyon. (The River actually flows on top of the Kaibab limestone, the top layer of the canyon. Sand deposits at Lees Ferry would have likely come from Glen canyon.) b) Douglass promotes a rapid, catastrophic incision of the canyon, not a uniformitarian approach based on " 1 inch per century."
So, in spite of the fact that the Canyon is now considered to be much more recent than originally believed (70Mya), models based on dating techniques still take enormous amounts of time to explain it.
So, how well accepted is this neo-catastrophist approach to modeling Grand Canyon? A review of the Proceedings of the GC Symposium of 2000 showed that the theory was published in a section named "Speculation." By contacting the Park Service, it was determined that Park geologists have not bought in to the idea. Therefore, it is a little too soon to celebrate. But it's great that a new theory close to the creationist model has been brought to the public eye, and the "age" of the canyon has been greatly shortened. 
Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon. The river flow direction is away from the camera.  One of the many small stream canyons in the valley below Mount St. Helens. River flow is toward the camera.
NOTE: My google image search found these images above and they orginated with jwoolfden. I had thought those were part of my collection obtained from another site. I am glad to give attribution. I had collected them previously and had them saved on my desktop and thus got them confused with another source but after research it is obvious that jwoolfden deserves the credit.
The differences in size are noted, but the aftermath of the Mt St Helens volcanic catastrophic events produced miniature canyons much like that of the Grand Canyon. Geologists have begun to take note and reconsider...
Historical References
(1) Newberry, J. S., "Geological Report," in J.C. Ives , Report Upon the Colorado River of the West, U.S. 36th Congress1st session, House Executive Doc. 90 Part 3 1861], 154 p.).
(2) Blackwelder, Eliot, "Origin of Colorado River, Geological Society of America Bulletin 45 1934] : 551-556.
(3) Williams, Howel, "Pliocene Volcanoes of the Navajo-Hopi Country", Geological Society of America Bulletin 47 [1936]: 111-172.
(4) G.C. Bowles, "Reinterpretation of Grand Canyon Morphology", United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1100 [1978]: p.72.
(5) Burdick, Clifford L., The Canyon of Canyons Caldwell Idaho, Bible Science Association,1974, p.27
(6) Austin, Steven A. and Whitmore, John H. Grand Canyon Field Study Tour Guidebook , March 23-30, 1986, [Santee, Clalifornia, Institute for Creation Research, 1986], p.48.
(7) Holroyd, Edmond W., III "Missing Talus," Creation Research Society Quarterly 24 [1987]: 15,16.
(8) Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon Field Tour Guidebook, April 9-16, 1988 [Santee, California, Institute for Creation Research, 1988 pp.50-54.
(9) Brown, Walter T, Jr., In the Beginning, [Phoenix, Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation, Fifth Edition, 1989, p. 83
(10) Holroyd, Edmund W., Jr.," Missing Talus on the Colorado Plateau," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 2, [1990]: 115-128.
(11) Williams, E.L, . Meyer, J.R. , and Wolfrom G.W., "Erosion of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River: Part III--Review of the Possible Formation of Basin and Lakes on Colorado Plateau and Different Climatic Conditions in the Past", Creation Research Society Quarterly 29 [1992]:18-24..
(12) Oard, Michael J., "Comments on the Breached Dam Theory for the Formation of the Grand Canyon," Creation Research Society Quarterly 30 [1993]: 39-46.
(13) Austin, Steven A., "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe," Institute for Creation Research, 1994, pp.92-104.
(14) Douglass, John and Meek, Norman, "Lake Overflow: An Alternative Hypothesis for Grand Canyon Incision and Development of the Colorado River," Proceedings of a Symposium on the Colorado River Origin and Evolution, Held at Grand Canyon National Park, June 2000, Edited by Young and Spamer, pp.199-204.
|
