The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications is a 1961 book by young Earth creationists John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris that, according to historian Ronald Numbers, elevated young Earth creationism "to a position of fundamentalist orthodoxy".Numbers(2006), 329
Background By the late nineteenth century, geologists, physicists and biologists agreed that the age of the Earth was well over 20 million years. Prior to the use of radiometric dating, scientific estimates before 1900 ranged between 20 million and 3 billion years old. Most Christians "readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life."Numbers(2006), 7. With very few exceptions they accommodated the new geological theories either with day-age creationism, the belief that the six days of Genesis represented vast ages, or by separating the original creation from a later Edenic creation: the so-called gap theory.Numbers(2006), 7-8. For instance, William Jennings Bryan of Scopes Trial fame, believed that the days of Genesis were geological ages and even "allowed for the possibility of organic evolution—so long as it did not impinge on the supernatural origin of Adam and Eve." Harry Rimmer, the best-known creationist before World War II, asserted that millions of years might be accommodated in the hypothetical "gap" of Genesis 1. The primary promoter of "flood geology" during the early twentieth century was George McCready Price, but he had comparatively little influence among evangelicals because he was a Seventh-day Adventist, a church treated warily by many conservative Protestants.Numbers(2006), 8, 223, 241, 260; Barry Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008):"the Religious and Science Association and the Deluge Geology Society were part of the bitter fundamentalist battle that took place in theological circles as well....These organizations were often top heavy with Seventh-day Adventists, and the fighting often pitted the Adventists against fundamentalists who thought Adventism was cultish with its reverence for prophet Ellen White." (72-73)
To Seventh-day Adventists, "the saints who greeted Christ as his Second Coming would be observing the seventh-day Sabbath in harmony with the Fourth Commandment....The Sabbath doctrine seemed to demand a literal creation week, for as Price cogently argued, if a person does not believe that there ever was a real Creation at some definite time in the past, how can we expect him to observe the Sabbath as a memorial of that event, which in his view never occurred?'" Numbers (2006), 104.
Origins By the 1950s, most evangelical scientists scorned flood geology, and those who accepted the theory were increasingly marginalized within the American Scientific Affiliation (founded 1941), an evangelical organization that gradually shifted from strict creationism to progressive creationism and theistic evolution.Numbers(2006), 180-81, 191 In 1954, Bernard Ramm, an evangelical apologist and theologian closely associated with the ASA, published The Christian View of Science and Scripture, which attacked the notion that "biblical inspiration implied that the Bible was a reliable source of scientific data."Numbers(2006), 208-09. The book was considered a model of new evangelical thought, and in 1954—just as the split between evangelicals and fundamentalists was taking place—evangelist Billy Graham called for a view of biblical inspiration "along the line of the recent book by Bernard Ramm." (209) Ramm ridiculed both flood geology and the gap theory, and one ASA member credited Ramm with providing a way for a majority of Christian biologists to accept evolution.Numbers(2006), 211. The same ASA member found it curious though that Ramm "stopped short of going through that door himself."
Ramm's book sparked a young Bible teacher and seminarian, John C. Whitcomb, Jr., to challenge what he considered its "absurdities". Whitcomb had earlier studied geology and paleontology at Princeton University, but by the 1950s, he was teaching the Bible at Grace Theological Seminary. At the 1953 ASA meeting, Whitcomb had been impressed by a presentation of Henry M. Morris—a hydraulic engineer with a PhD from the University of Minnesota—called "The Biblical Evidence for Recent Creation and Universal Deluge". Following publication of Ramm's book, Whitcomb decided to devote his Th.D. dissertation to defending flood geology.
Berated almost from the beginning of his project by influential evangelicals such as Edward John Carnell, the newly installed president of Fuller Theological Seminary,Numbers(2006), 213. Carnell denounced even the notion of asking evangelical leaders about their beliefs concerning creation and the Flood. Whitcomb completed his dissertation in 1957 and began condensing it for publication. With no illusions about his scientific expertise, Whitcomb sought a collaborator who had a PhD in science. He could find no geologists who took Genesis seriously, and even teachers at evangelical schools at best expressed distaste for flood geology.Numbers(2006), 215. The eccentric creationist and fruit farmer Dudley Joseph Whitney complained, "Why, why, why, should the saints be so prone to take positions which discredit the Bible?" Eventually, Henry Morris agreed to become Whitcomb's collaborator for the scientific portions of the book. Despite his heavy teaching load and administrative duties at Virginia Tech, where he had just become head of a large civil-engineering program, Morris made steady progress on his section of the book, eventually contributing more than twice as much material as Whitcomb.Numbers(2006), 222
As the manuscript neared completion, Moody Press, which had expressed initial interest, now hesitated. The proposed book was a long work that insisted on six literal days of creation and was certain to be criticized by segments of Moody's constituency.Numbers(2006), 224. Whitcomb and Morris instead published with the smaller Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, whose owner Charles H. Craig had long wanted to acquire a manuscript that supported catastrophism.Numbers(2006), 224-25. Craig had majored in geology at Princeton, but he "had always preferred catastrophism to uniformitarianism." By the following year, a second printing had been issued by the much larger Baker Book House.
Contents After opening with the declaration that "the Bible is the infallible Word of God",Whitcomb and Morris, 1. Whitcomb's section provides biblical arguments for a universal floodThese included arguments that the Flood covered the highest mountains, that Noah was unable to disembark for a year, that there would be no purpose for building a gigantic ark and collecting animals if the Flood were local, that Jesus Christ said that all men were destroyed by the Flood, and 2 Peter 3.3-7 uses the Flood as a "basis for refuting uniformitarian skeptics in the last days." Whitcomb and Morris, 33-34. as well as attempting to refute non-geological difficulties with the biblical account.These included the possibility of taking the Bible metaphorically, the argument that the Ark was too small to contain examples of all the world's animals, and that the animals could not have distributed themselves over the earth so quickly after the Flood. Whitcomb and Morris, 86-88. Whitcomb specifically addresses the local flood theories of Bernard Ramm—who has far more entries in the index than anyone else.Numbers(2006), 226. There are forty references to Ramm in the index. Whitcomb concludes his section of the work with a review of how geological theories had influenced Christian views of the Flood since the beginning of the nineteenth century and draws the "one vitally important lesson", that the biblical doctrine of the Flood cannot be harmonized with "uniformitarian theories".Whitcomb and Morris, 113-14.
Morris introduces his section on geology with the frank statement that Bible-believing Christians face "a serious dilemma" because contemporary geologists present "an almost unanimous verdict" against the biblical account of creation and the Flood. Nevertheless, Morris assures believers that "evidences of full divine inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact of science."Whitcomb and Morris, 117-18. Morris then argues that "fossil-bearing strata were apparently laid down in large measure during the Flood, with the apparent sequences attributed not to evolution but rather to hydrodynamic selectivity, ecologic habitats, and differential mobility and strength of the various creatures."Whitcomb and Morris, 327. He also dismisses the theory of "thrust faults", the mainstream geological theory by which "old" rocks were presumed to have come to rest on "young" rocks.Numbers(2006), 227. In the first two editions Whitcomb and Morris also claimed evidence for dinosaur and human footprints side-by-side in the Paluxy River bed, some examples of which were produced by a Depression-era hoaxer. In the third printing, "they silently revised the text."(228) The Institute for Creation Research, though admitting the problems, has not quite given up on the Paluxy footprints. "The Paluxy River Tracks", (1976) Institute for Creation Research, (accessed January 05, 2009). Morris argues that commonly accepted geological theories do not truly depend on scientific data but are rather a "moral and emotional decision", in which evolutionists seek "intellectual justification for escape from personal responsibility to his Creator and escape from the 'way of the Cross' as the necessary and sufficient means of his personal redemption."Whitcomb and Morris, 328-330. Finally, in the longest chapter of the book, Morris addresses "problems in biblical geology", which include commonly used dating methods (such as carbon-14 measurements) as well as geological formations, such as coral reefs, petrified forests, and varves, all of which imply great age for the earth.Whitcomb and Morris, 331-453.
Reception Several dozen Christian magazines reviewed the book and generally praised its defense of the scriptural account of the Flood, although few seemed to understand that accepting Whitcomb and Morris meant rejecting the day-age and gap theories. Christianity Today, the most important evangelical magazine of the period, published a tepid review that did not address issues raised by the book but instead criticized the authors for using secondary sources and taking arguments out of context.Numbers(2006), 230; Donald C. Boardman, "Review," Christianity Today (September 11, 1961), 39-40 The American Scientific Affiliation featured two hostile reviews, and in 1969, the ASA Journal published a highly critical commentary by J. R. van de Fliert, a Dutch Reformed geologist at the Free University of Amsterdam, who called Whitcomb and Morris "pseudo-scientific" pretenders. "To ensure that no readers missed his point," the journal "ran boldfaced sidebars by evangelical geologists applauding van de Fliert's bare-knuckled approach."Numbers(2006), 231-33; J. R. van de Fliert, "Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 21 (September 1969): 69-81.
Outside fundamentalist circles The Genesis Flood created "hardly a ripple of recognition".Numbers(2006), 235. Its release went unnoted by professional geology journals and periodicals covered by Book Review Digest. In a talk given to the large Houston Geological Society, Morris received a whimsical introduction by the president that fell well short of praise for his work. His call for questions at the conclusion of his talk produced none; one member said the audience was "too stunned to speak".Numbers(2006), 236.