The Grand Canyon
How did it get there?
Since I happen to be a church-going Christian, and a lover of science, I have two groups of people telling me 2 different things. The scientists tell me that over millions (billions?) of years the relatively small Colarado river slowly eroded the rock and the canyon was formed. Of course, clergy have a different explanation. They say that’s rubbish (funny word) because 1) there were no “millions of years” and 2) no river as small as the Colorado could do such a thing.
So who’s a guy to believe?
I’m relatively practical. I call things like I see them. I’m not a trained scientist. All I know is what I can understand. And to me, neither explanation made very much sense. For instance, if the Amazon (as large and mighty as it is) didn’t carve out a canyon, then why would the Colorado? Or the Nile, or the Mississippi for that matter. Also, I can understand a small amount of erosion, but an entire canyon’s worth??? That just didn’t make sense.
But neither did the “the flood did it” argument from the Creationists. How could even massive amounts of water in around a year’s time wash away so much rock? And why is it a canyon? If the water was so powerful, then the canyon’s edge should be gone as well, right?
Well, it turns out my layman assumptions were wrong on both parts. My first clue came in the form of the Discovery Channel. I was watching a random TV show (can’t even remember which one … maybe Man vs. Wild) and noticed that the host was walking through a rock crevice. And sure enough, at the bottom of this crevice, there was a small, trickling stream. Yep, over the years (a relatively small amount of time) this little creek had carved out a crevice that was so deep, you could not climb out. And if a small stream could do it in a few years, a river could do it in millions of years.
But on the flip side, I learned that there was a good bit of research being done on the Creationist/Flood side as well. Turns out, the sedimentary layers found withing the canyon seemed more consistent with some sort of rapid deposit theory.
But the debate rages on. And I’m stuck in the middle wondering who’s right. Both seem plausible to me. If there were millions of years to work with, I believe the Colorado could carve the canyon out. But if not, and there were a global flood, it seems believable that such a flood could indeed leave a canyon this large in it’s path. But both sides have key arguments that contradict the other side’s arguments. This page makes some good points. And this page makes good points of it’s own.
So is this debate wrapped up in the assumptions of the respective sides? Is the explanation dependent on the knowledge of the age of the earth? It would seem that way. And for my part, I still ride the fence.
What do you think?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] UPDATE: I forgot to mention the post that drove me to write more about this. Thanks Nathan! [...]
[...] If you are like most of us, we can’t make up our minds on how the canyons were formed. Read this article on “Who do you believe”. [...]
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: show_manual_subscription_form() in /nfs/c03/h05/mnt/48320/domains/nathanrice.org/html/wp-content/themes/ElegantBlue/comments.php on line 108
Good article.
Geology will always have these kinds of raging arguments because too much of the field lies in natural history paradigms and too little in experimental data.
Massive geologic events (i.e. volcanic ones) have clearly displayed that the layers can be layed down very quickly, and that canyons can be carved out very quickly. They can also be carved out very slowly.
The biggest issue to me is simply the nature of the layers - i.e. the depositional environment and speed. If you haven’t been to the grand canyon - don’t ask questions, just go. The layers are amazing. Miles at a time, sharp as a razor distinctions between each layer.
Beautiful place.
“The forces you posit having carved the Canyon are too small!”
“The timescales you posit are too short!”
The debate looks a lot like that, doesn’t it? Now geology is certainly not my forte, but it appears to me that both models are about equally able to explain the Grand Canyon. Each lacks in certain areas, but the failings of biblical geology lie elsewhere. I haven’t seen the canyon, though (In fact, I’ve never been west of the Mississippi
). I fully intend to, one of these days.
People snicker when the bible says the Earth was created in a few days. I wonder why they never stopped to think that there really wasn’t such a thing as ‘a day’ before the Earth was created. Perhaps ‘a day’ was a billion years?!’.
What I do know is that people feel comfortable in 1 of 2 ways:
1. Knowing
2. Having Faith
Even though we don’t really ‘know’, we like to pretend we do because it makes us feel better. 400 years ago we ‘knew’ that blood-letting cured diseases, fires rid us of witches, and the world was flat. 400 years from now (if we’ve not killed ourselves), people will joke about how much we ‘knew’.
I have faith that there’s something bigger out there!
George…
We’ll make a road trip out of it. You grab some of your atheist buddies, I’ll grab some luny fundamentalists, and we’ll pack a few 30GB hard drives and a truckload of lenses and go shoot some photos… Even if people don’t want to watch us argue when we get back, at least we can show pictures!
Douglas:
You could certainly interpret it that way. But then you run into the problem that the order of creation is quite different from what science tells us. For instance, the Earth and many of the living things upon it were made before the sun and other stars, according to Genesis. Even if you interpret each of these days as 3 billion years or thereabouts, it still doesn’t jive. Sorry, but even with day-age theology, there is simply no way to reconcile Genesis with the current scientific account. You must either decide that Genesis is simply wrong, or decide that Genesis is entirely true and that the scientists’ account is wrong.
Matt- sounds like a plan. ;D
Douglas, besides what George said, a niggle: scientists 400 years ago did not think the Earth was flat. I thought the same as you before I joined the Flat Earth Society, after whence (is that proper grammar?) I created this image: http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3231/geodesytimelineew3.png
“I have faith that there’s something bigger out there!”
I’ve heard this line again and again. But consider for a moment the vastness of the cosmos as science describes it. Douglas Adams’ opening lines to The Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy were
“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.”
Faith - and by that I of course mean its religious incarnations - describes a tiny world ruled by a tiny, petty God. Reason - through science - shows us a world of infinite beauty, awe, and mystery. Not only is there something bigger than all of us, there’s an entire universe (and perhaps a multiverse) of majestic giants to be explored.
George,
Relatively well said. Pseudo-biblical “scholars” need to realize that a partial paradigm blend won’t work.
Ubuntu,
I love your characterization of theism (and your characterization of the “insignificance” of earth and its place in the universe!). It proves yet again that you don’t actually have a clue what you are talking about. Keep up the good work.
-Matthew
Taking any religious text, even if it’s inspired by God Himself, is dangerous. It’s the kind of thing that starts wars!
I still have faith that we’re too arrogant about what we think we know versus what’s really out there. I’ve had too many coincidences in my life to believe it’s just a chemical process that explains love, depression, happiness, joy, etc.
This post inspired me to write more:
http://www.douglaskarr.com/2007/07/22/knowing/
Matt-
Perhaps you could relieve me of my ignorance. Surely you admit that for thousands of years monotheism has posited a tiny, anthropocentric universe with the God of Abraham has a petty God. Today, creationism continues the tradition in part by positing a universe a fraction of the real universe not in size but in age.
Carl Sagan wrote in Pale Blue Dot:
-Trent
Ubuntu,
“”"Perhaps you could relieve me of my ignorance. “”"
It might take a while. Do you actually want to be relieved of it?
“”"Surely you admit that for thousands of years monotheism has posited a tiny, anthropocentric universe with the God of Abraham has a petty God.”"”
A very unintelligent characterization to say the least. Tiny? Nothing of the sort. Anthropocentric? Again, nothing of the sort (except perhaps with respect to written reference frames, which is standard protocol for any writing including modern science texts). A petty God? Well, you don’t really have a reference against which you can make that analysis.
“”"Today, creationism continues the tradition in part by positing a universe a fraction of the real universe not in size but in age.”"”
Hmmm… Let me know when you grasp the concept of “scientific interpretation” a bit better.
Matt- Galileo died fighting the anthropocentric universe. You know that. God’s main job was creating humanity and his main interest maintaining it. Man was made in God’s image. Man was the first creature to walk the Earth. Man, man, man.
God is always interested in adultery, homosexuality, apostasy and countless petty affairs. He is a prude and malevolent, jealous micro-manager.
While you’re not a creationist, your holy text undeniably supports creationism, which is upheld - if the polls are to be believed - roughly half of the American population. Don’t evade the issue.