Top positive review
5.0 out of 5 starsThoughtful, scientifically-based critique of uniformitarian assumptions
July 7, 2019
It’s no secret that the geologists involved in this documentary subscribe to a young earth and a Biblical view of natural history. However, this film is far from creationist-propaganda. On the contrary, the message of the film is primarily that catastrophic forces are likely responsible for much more of the geologic record than assumed, including the famous Siccar Point, where Hutton first concluded that the formations at that locality would have required long-lasting, gradual processes. The arguments made on this point are entirely driven by the rocks themselves, not by any religious teaching. A secondary point is that the evidence for “deep time”, which is seemingly well-attested by other dating means, is largely missing from the physical rock record, in particular the sedimentary record. This argument is not developed to argue exclusively for a young earth, but rather to question the assumptions made by most geologists as to the amount of time represented by the global stratigraphic record. The arguments in this documentary are thought-provoking, without being demanding of a particular viewpoint.
Yes, the conclusions herein made would be largely consistent with those held by many young-earth proponents, including geologists such as Garner, Snelling, and Whitmore. That is hardly surprising - I dare say most scientists would prefer to promote ideas that they agree with. However, so far as this documentary goes, they are also largely in line with the arguments of non-creationist writers such as Derek Ager. There should be no reason why non-creationist students of geology shouldn’t learn to appreciate the role of catastrophic processes in Earth’s past, or re-examine tired assumptions (sometimes founded upon precious little data) about the formation of the rock record. There is no need to let the creationist community own the entire field of catastrophism in geology - there is certainly room for other creative thinkers to re-evaluate the evidence.
