Re: [asa] Plate tectonics

Charles,

That was an excellent short summary of the beginnings of Plate Tectonics
Theory. I thought I would add a few comments.

The prevailing idea prior to plate tectonics with respect to mountain
building was known as the geosynclinal theory. Briefly, many large
mountain chains were thought to have formed when excessive sediments
accumulated in long linear 'sags' in the Earth's crust called
'geosynclines'. These geosynclines in the crust sank lower and lower into
the underlying mantle until the upward pressure from below overcame the
weight of the accumulated sediments. At this point the geosynclines were
pushed back up (sort of like a wooden block that has been pushed too far
under water and bobbing back to the surface) and formed long belts of
folded rock in mountain ranges. The Alps, Himalayas, and the Appalachians
are classic geosynclinal mountain ranges. Please note that this brief
explanation doesn't really do justice to the breadth of studies and
thought invested in the geosynclinal theory. This 'paradigm' prevailed
until replaced by Plate Tectonics in the 1960's & 70's. Even though I
began my college days in geology during the late 1970's, the geosynclinal
theory was still discussed and taught so that we could understand the
terminology and ideas that were being replaced.

Although ridiculed, the Continental Drift hypothesis remained in the
geology textbooks from the time of Wegener because it did propose
solutions for features that were not well explained by geosynclinal theory
and other contemporary ideas. By the mid to late 1950's the ruling
geosynclinal theory paradigm was showing signs of distress. The geologic
literature of this time is filled with expressions of angst and articles
showing unsolved problems with the prevailing theories. The success of
the Plate Tectonics 'revolution' was due in large part to its ability to
account for all features of the geosynclinal theory observations as well
as most of the contradictory evidence.

One point that is relevant to this forum needs to be made. The book that
catalyzed the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) movement -- The Genesis Flood
by John Whitcomb & Henry Morris -- was published in 1961. This book
capitalized on the frustrations in the geologic community with the
prevailing geosynclinal theory. Numerous passages from the geologic
literature that complained of the inadequacies of geosynclinal theory were
held up as proof that "modern uniformitarian geology is in crisis." This
book then presented the revamped Flood Geology ideas of George McCready
Price (c. 1920's) as the geological and theological solution for
evangelical America. If I remember correctly, The Genesis Flood does not
even acknowledge or recognize the Plate Tectonics revolution that was
beginning at that time. Within a decade all of the geologic problems used
effectively in The Genesis Flood were easily solved by Plate Tectonic
Theory yet it has taken several decades for this revolution to be
acknowledged in the YEC community. In fact, as of today the Online Store
at Morris' Institute for Creation Research still advertises The Genesis
Flood as follows ...

"This is the book which many recognize as having started the modern
revival of creationism and catastrophism. Although it has gone through
over 32 printings, it is still the most definitive treatment of the
Biblical and scientific evidences of the global flood in the days of
Noah."
<http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&manufacturers_id=&products_id=2626>

That's sad when 45 year-old, pre-paradigm shift arguments are "still the
most definitive ... scientific evidences [sic]" used by the YEC community
today. (Note: I recognize that this statement is probably the
publisher's hyperbole and that recent YEC geologists acknowledge some
facets of Plate Tectonics but I would estimate that 9 out 10 YEC geology
arguments heard today still come directly from The Genesis Flood.) Perhaps
this explains some of the frustrations expressed by geologists on this
list.

Steve
[Disclaimer: Blame me and not my employer for these opinions]
_____________
 Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
 Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
 Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
 Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
 -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
  http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 20 11:31:19 2006