Creationists Contesting Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

Scientists have their theories, and with those come disagreements. It is very difficult to break through the consensus and see if anyone salutes a new idea that was run up the flagpole, as Alfred Wegener learned when he proposed plate tectonics. Now it is the standard geological view. Creation scientists also have their disagreements, and this will be a glance behind the curtain at one of those.

Image credit:  US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Scientists have their worldviews and presuppositions, never mind the "purely objective" stereotype that is unrealistic. Secular scientists use atheistic naturalism and biblical creationists uphold recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Contrary to the claims of anti-creationist tinhorns, creationists do accept science that is observed by scientific evidence. It is a mite disconcerting that some creationists reject plate tectonics and figure that other creationists are compromising with naturalism. Not hardly! In fact, those who reject plate tectonics and catastrophic plate tectonics have not produced adequate evidence for their views.

Recent creationist literature has been filled with papers critical of catastrophic plate tectonics, even suggesting that a schism has divided Flood geology. Creation scientists who accept the validity of plate motion have been accused of ‘naturalism’ and have been labelled as ‘remodellers’. However, creationist acceptance of plate tectonics does not entail any sort of acquiescence to naturalism. Six types of empirical data are presented which imply significant horizontal movement of coherent lithospheric plates during the Flood. Much of these data are independent of the secular geologic timescale, including heat flow in the ocean crust and seismic tomography data which illustrate the presence of subducted oceanic lithosphere within the mantle. Unfortunately, most of these data supporting catastrophic plate tectonics are rarely discussed by critics. In contrast, this paper suggests that the best explanation of all available geologic data supports rapid horizontal plate movement during the Flood. The catastrophic plate tectonics model further offers a mechanism for the flooding of the continents, the subsequent lowering and draining of the floodwaters, and a cause for the post-Flood Ice Age. The only ‘schism’ in Flood geology is one perceived by the scientists who fail to acknowledge all of the empirical data.

You can finish reading the article by clicking on "Empirical data support seafloor spreading and catastrophic plate tectonics". Also of interest is a similar article linked at "Moving Along with Plate Tectonics".