Join the #YoungEarth Revolution!

 

When it comes to origins we must face the question, “What happened“?  That is, did man come from molecules or are Essential Types of Life (ETL's) limited with respect to variability?  Biological essentialism implies stability and variety among basic categories of life.

If I said that President Kennedy’s head wound was the result of abuse of exotic Norwegian teas, you might think me insane.  Most agree that JFK was shot, but in some circles the “who” is controversial.

It is possible to be an essentialist and an atheist - they are wrong about the existence of God, but at least they’re correct with respect to what happened in the history of life.  Surely the ability of the incubator bird to keep its eggs at 91°F and 99.5% humidity did not evolve.[1]  When did an intelligent agent make a cell phone, bridge or clock through “evolution”?  Evolution is the method of an inefficient “god.”

Essentialism implies a young earth. If biological entities reproduce their own type, then all the main categories have always coexisted.  In order to match this view with the geologic record the time scale must be collapsed.[2]  That is, corals, frogs and people have always coexisted.  “Who did it?” is not the only important question.  “What happened?” is also critical.

The earth is cursed because of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17) and even the stars are impure in God’s sight (Job 25:5).  Stars blow up and thus lack perfection.  God made man perfect from the beginning (Eccl. 7:29, Mt. 19:4).  In conclusion, there were no tornadoes before Adam and Eve sinned.  This makes theistic evolution impossible.

The Westminster Confession states that God created, “...the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good” (ch. 4.1).  That is, galaxies and angels are untouched by sin at the end of six days when man was created.  Also, the universe cannot be billions of years older than man!

Consider the following creationists:  Steven Austin (Ph.D. Geology) was published in the International Geology Review in 1999.  David Phillips (M.A. Paleoanthropology) works at the paleontology lab at the La Brea Tar Pits.  John Oller (Ph.D. General Linguistics) is an elected member of the New York Academy of Sciences.  Kurt Wise (Ph.D. Geology - Harvard) was privileged to have the late Stephen J. Gould as his principal advisor!  The “Against All Odds” video series, part of the Annenberg/CPB collection, is shown in many statistics university courses and contains a segment in program 2 entitled “Lightning Strikes in Colorado.”  It focuses on the research of Raul Lopez (Ph.D. Atmospheric Science) - a creationist![3] 

 

#DarwinDoubters of the world unite!  David Berlinski (Ph.D. Mathematics - Princeton) said, “The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought.  It is large, almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”[4]  Thomas Emmel (d. 2018), who earned his Ph.D. in Population Biology from  Stanford, stated, “To me, the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense universe that lies around us…. the evidence is all too pervasive for me to think otherwise."  Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics for 1978) claimed, “Creation is supported by all the data so far.”[5]  Penzias’ sentiments are echoed by another Nobel prize winner in physics (1927), Arthur H. Compton: 

 

Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything ... An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: "In the beginning, God."[6]

 

Even an atheist can hold to the fixity of kinds.  G. H. Harper published an article in The School Science Review (a British educational journal) advocating the “steady state theory of species.”  In other words, bears reproduce bears and frogs make frogs - biological essentialism.  Harper is an atheist.[7]

 

I was happy to take a course in the History of Science from Dr. David B. Kitts, formerly a professor of Geology, at the University of Oklahoma.  In that course he pointed out that many supposed overthrusts - where “old” rocks lay uniformly upon “young” rocks -  show no evidence of this interpretation, such as breccia at the contact, and has not been sufficiently answered by the evolutionary establishment.  In an oft quoted article, Kitts proclaimed, “If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record then he has indeed committed a methodological error.”[8]        

Dr. Kitts debated Duane Gish and Henry Morris in 1973 and was a student of the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson.[9]  In an interview in 1981, Kitts said, “Aristotle, to a greater extent than almost anyone we know about, relied upon his observations.  He observed that individual members of a species do not persist but kinds do persist. ... Evolutionists have a very elaborate abstract theory that compels us to suppose that species do not persist.”  Furthermore, Kitts claimed, “The fossil record is consistent with an astronomical number of theories.  The fossil record does not prove evolution; nothing proves evolution.”[10]

 

Let us examine the wise words of Rufus Porter (d. 1884), the founder of Scientific American, who boldly proclaimed,

 

First, then, let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and daily Preserver; and that we are each of us individually dependant on his special care and good will towards us, in supporting the wonderful action of nature which constitutes our existence; and in preserving us from the casualties, to which our complicated and delicate structure is liable.[11]

 

One can be an atheist and still attack evolution.  By "essentialism" I mean that all basic types of life vary within limits and we are not the amoeba's cousin. Herbert Spencer, an atheist, wrote "Illogical Geology" critiquing many of the ideas upon which Darwin based his arguments!    

 

my site: https://totalyouth.us

 

Notes:

1) The Evolution of a Creationist by Jobe Martin (Biblical Discipleship Pub., 1994), p.45.

2) Henry Morris noticed this decades ago.

3) Some scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation:

https://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

4) "Keeping an Eye on Evolution" by David Berlinski,

The Globe & Mail, Nov. 2, 1996, p. D10:

http://www.refcm.org/scripture-science-stott/evolution/pages/018-eye-on-evolution.htm

5) Some Interesting Statements By Scientists (9-4-99):

https://jashow.org/articles/some-interesting-statements-by-scientists-a-compilation-of-statements-made-by-scientists-only-one-of-whom-is-a-biblical-creationist-concerning-evolution/

6) Arthur Compton Quotes:

https://nichequotes.com/arthur-compton-quotes

7) Harper, G. H., “Alternatives to Evolutionism,” The School Science Review, 1979, 61:15-27.

8) Kitts, David, “Search for the Holy Transformation,” Paleobiology, 1979, 5(3): p. 353.

9) Morris, Henry ed. et al, Creation: Acts Facts Impacts, Creation-Life Pub., 1974, p. 40.

10) personal interview with Dr. David B. Kitts, 10/7/1981 in Norman, Oklahoma:

https://youtu.be/TmF7Y3kpucU

11) Rufus Porter (inventor) facts for kids:

https://kids.kiddle.co/Rufus_Porter_(inventor)

Biological Essentialism vs. Biological Essentialism (Devitt v. Hall)

 

Australian philosopher Michael Devitt (CUNY - NYC) has a new book with the same title as mine (Oxford University Press):

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/biological-essentialism-9780198840282

If you search "biological essentialism" on Amazon, you get a book about Chinese Volleyball as a top suggestion!  One book by Michael Devitt, which does relate to our topic, does appear in the search results - Biological Essentialism.  The point is that few books  supporting the traditional view of biological essentialism shows up on the list.  That is, basic types of life exhibit limited change - the true UnDarwinism.  Two books that I would have hoped for would be Real Essentialism by David Oderberg and Aristotle’s Revenge by Edward Feser. 

Bio-essentialism does not deny the variety in the created order.  Devitt quotes Oderberg: "As a general principle essentialism is wholly compatible with substantial change, a phenomenon continuously exhibited in the inorganic world. It is an elementary mistake to think that fixed essences exclude substantial change” (Biological Essentialism - Devitt, p. 87).  For example, a false killer whale (genus Pseudorca) may cross with a dolphin (genus Tursiops), both in the family Delphinidae.  Hence, the label "wholphin."

 

Language and Reality from a Naturalistic Perspective by Devitt is also on Amazon's list, but is much more narrow than the overarching questions ...

   How many kinds of plants are there?

   What are the distinct natural kinds of animals?

However, Language and Reality, which tackles linguistics, reference, meaning (Boswell any1?), methodology, metaphysics and counters Chomsky, does relate to the issue of human exceptionalism.  Is "human nature" a thing?  Mathematician David Berlinski (Ph.D., Princeton) says, "YES" and wrote a whole book on it:

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-David-Berlinski/dp/1936599716

Berlinski (Tour of the Calculus) has taught philosophy and #Maths in France & the USA.  He lives just blocks from the Notre Dame cathedral.

 

On the other hand, when you search "biological essentialism" (without quotes) on Barnes & Noble, my book Biological Essentialism is #1 ‼  Devitt's tome is second #IM_2nd ...  Please get a copy for yourself, your fam/friends/NME's and other sentient beings (Vulcans any1?) today:

www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biological-essentialism-jay-hall/1140135320

 

Naturalist* Michael Devitt studied under Willard Van Orman Quine (tracer of lost essences?) at Harvard.  Devitt's first book, Designation (1981) covers the “theory of reference” as popularized by the logician Saul Kripke.  To the best of my knowledge, Devitt's initial book is not on the same route as the action-packed #SciFi adventure Designation of Origin - The Earth (2015) directed by Dorian Sanz (Tantalus):

https://en.kinorium.com/1450946/

According to Willard Quine (d. 2000), "... there is nothing more basic to thought and language than our sense of similarity; our sorting of things into kinds." [1]

 

Are you down with the Kripke and Putnam Revolution?  Kripke (1980) and Putnam (1975) apply rigidity to natural kinds:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/

  #LetsGo_RigidDesignatorz ‼

There is a Putnam, Texas (originally known as Catclaw) which is named after General Israel Putnam of the American Revolution.  Interestingly, there exists a Krupki (Krupka, Крупки) in Belarus - the Yiddish version is "Kripke."  These towns were named at some points by humans.  How did "Cat" get its name?

Alexander Bird and Emma Tobin bring out the key importance of the work of philosophers Saul Kripke (b. 1940) and Hilary Putnam (d. 2016) as it relates to Essential Types of Life (ETL's): "One may ... argue that the arguments of Kripke, Putnam, and others do appeal to intuitions concerning the nature and/or identity of natural kinds [or rather ETL's], and so the inferences to essentialism from claims about necessity are legitimate in these cases." [2]

 

Writing in the Croatian Journal of Philosophy, Zdenka Brzović is willing to give Devitt the time of day:

 

In this paper I examine Michael Devitt’s version of essentialism, a view that stirred a lot of debate amongst philosophers of biology by going against the mainstream view of “death of essentialism” in evolutionary biology. So far, much more attention was directed to refuting Devitt’s view then to analyzing what his essentialism consists in. I go through the main tenets of the essentialist view, examine the relation between Devitt’s view and the so-called traditional essentialism ...

 

"Devitt’s Promiscuous Essentialism" by Zdenka Brzović, Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 18 > Issue: 2

https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/browse?fp=croatjphil&fq=croatjphil%2FVolume%2F8982%7C18%2F8998%7CIssue%3A+2%2F

 

I am very comfortable calling my view "traditional essentialism," that is, Aristotle's Biology.  Armand Leroi (The Lagoon) has a mondo vid on Aristotle's Biology from *Serious Science* >>

https://youtu.be/frVUd4V5ZTk

The Lagoon:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/The-Lagoon-How-Aristotle-Invented-Science-Pre-Owned-Paperback-9780143127987-by-Armand-Marie-Leroi/3942175510

 

Devitt makes his essential thesis clear:

 

What is it to be a member of a particular taxon [e.g. horses, hydras & humans]? ...  The consensus answer in the philosophy of biology, particularly for taxa that are species, is that the essence is not in any way intrinsic to the members but rather is wholly relational, particularly, historical. ...  In "Resurrecting Biological Essentialism" (2008), I rejected the consensus.  I presented an argument that there is an intrinsic component to a taxon's essence and responded to the well-known objections to such a view: that it is at odds, first, with the relational nature of species according to current "species concepts" and, second, with the variation and change that are central to Darwinism.

 

"Historical biological essentialism" by Michael Devitt, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part C), Vol. 71, OCT 2018, p. 1.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/download/eid/1-s2.0-S1369848617301887/first-page-pdf

 

We read this from the Introduction of Devitt's book on #BioEss ...

 

The idea that biological natural kinds, particularly a species like dogs, have intrinsic underlying natures is intuitively appealing. It has been shown to be widespread even among children (Keil 1989). It was endorsed by a great philosopher, Aristotle. Under the influence of the logical positivists, Popper (1950), Quine (1960), and others, it fell from philosophical favor in the twentieth century until revived by Saul Kripke (1980), Hilary Putnam (1975), and David Wiggins (1980). Many philosophers probably now take the view for granted. If so, they are right out of touch with biologists and, especially, philosophers of biology. For, the consensus among philosophers of biology, and a widespread view among biologists, is that this sort of “Aristotelian essentialism” is deeply wrong, reflecting “typological” thinking instead of the recommended “population” thinking  ... I shall defend intrinsic biological essentialism. I think that the children are right and the philosophers of biology, wrong.

 

Devitt discusses species in the context of horses and zebras (Biological Essentialism - Devitt, p. 16).  ETL's are generally tagged at the Family level of classification.  Of course, the human species is a key exception.  I place horses (including zebras, donkeys, 3-toed etc.) in one ETL.

 

Devitt goes into great detail in outlining various opposing methods to tag species and how to proceed with biological classification (species, genus, family ...).   Let's consider a simpler alternative.  Pulitzer Prize winning Gödel, Escher, Bach is a thoughtful work from Douglas Hofstadter which lays out the connections between these powerful creators:

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/reading-through-a-pandemic/godel-escher-bach

 

The cover has a cubic block of wood carved so that the shadow makes a "G" or an "E" or a "B" depending on the direction of the light.  So, when asked about this cube we should take a Both/And approach, it's G&E, E&B and B&G.  This is my view on how we define ETL's which has three main components:

  1) similar body parts and functions

  2) you are what your father was

  3) you are what your mother was.

Thus, a mule, the cross between a female horse and a male donkey is part of the horse ETL.  Likewise, a hinny which derives from a female donkey and a male horse.  Donkey Hodie would also be part of the "horse" natural kind. ☺    

 

Richard Van Gelder (d. 1994), former Curator with the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, said this regarding hybrids:

 

I have somewhat arbitrarily selected the production of a living offspring as the criterion for acceptability in an intergeneric cross.  It seems to me that if the chromosomes of two taxa are compatible enough to develop a fetus to term, then the parents would seem to be more closely related than generic separation would suggest. [3]

 

I am thrilled that Devitt referenced my History of Science Prof, David  B. Kitts (pp. 6, 95).  David Kitts (d. 2010) was the curator of the University of Oklahoma’s (OU) Stovall Museum (now the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History).  Kitts was a Professor in both the Geology and the History of Science departments.  Despite being a victim of polio, Kitts was an avid cyclist, riding in England, France and Oklahoma.  On October 7th, 1981, I interviewed him on the topic of evolution.  He regarded the proposal that basic categories of organisms have remained constant as a legitimate scientific question:

 

Aristotle, to a greater extent than almost anyone we know about, relied upon his observations.  He observed that individual members of a species do not persist but kinds [or rather ETL's] do persist.  That is a pretty obvious fact about the world.  If there is abundant empirical support for the view that species persist, why do evolutionists suppose they do not persist?  Evolutionists have a very elaborate abstract theory that compels us to suppose that species do not persist.  Our reason for thinking that species do not persist is not our observation that they do not persist, but it is a theory that requires them not to persist. ...  Whatever the observations that support evolutionary theory are, they are not the observations that one species [or rather ETL's] turns into another. [4]

 

Here is the interview on "UToob" >>

https://youtu.be/TmF7Y3kpucU

 

Here is a summary of my book Biological Essentialism, chapter by chapter:                                            

[1] What is Biological Essentialism? - Cats are cats, bats are bats and apes and people do not have a common ancestor.  Horses, hydras and humans are examples of Essential Types of Life (ETL's).         

[2] The Darwin Limited - Biological stasis keeps variation in check.  Plant breeders know that Darwinism is not all powerful.

[3] Species Do Not Exist - We should drop the term "species" in favor of ETL's.  The origin of "species" goes back to Genesis.

[4] Is Your Nature Human? -          Human Exceptionalism is real.  Mankind has a unique intrinsic nature.

[5] Some Men I Know are Really Women - Are Gender Fluid alternatives legitimate? Is Milo confused?

[6] Show Natural Kindness to Every Kind! - How do we determine the boundaries of ETL's?  What about slime molds?

[7] Dawkins vs. Dawkins - Is Richard Dawkins pro-Darwin or anti?  A survey of the famous 1986 debate (Dawkins vs. Wilder-Smith).           

[8] Seas of Wisdom Twelve - Focusing on 12 champions of bio-essentialism:  Aristotle, Mendel, Berlinski, Hutton, Cuvier, Cotter etc.

[9] Is it Illegal to Question Evolution? - Will the plague of net censorship soon attack origins discourse?  Highlighting government leaders and scholars who doubt Darwin.

[10] Darwin's Downers - Can Darwin tell us the Meaning of Life?  Are babies people too?  How do evolutionists view the future?

[11] Is Your Worldview Biased? - Does propaganda for evolution fairly represent the facts?  Aliens, volleyball, time travel and conversion therapy.

[12] Implications of Biological Essentialism - How do bio-essentialists deal with endangered species?  Biological Essentialism implies Catastrophism and a new geology.

 

When you get the book, your feedback, pro or con, is most welcome:

https://totalyouth.us/contact-us

 

Biological Essentialism explains Essential Types of Life (ETL's), such as bears and penguins - these are distinct kinds of organisms that do not have a common ancestor and organic variation has limits.  Would you like to learn more about human exceptionalism, the fruit of evolution and the meaning of life?  If so, this book is for you!  Get your copy today:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biological-essentialism-jay-hall/1140135320

#NaturalKinds #worldview #Aristotle

 

* Not in the Literature sense (Call of the Wild), but in the sense that evolution explains origins.

 

Notes:

1) quoted in Biological Essentialism by Jay L. Hall (True Truth Productions, Big Spring, TX, 2021), p. 167. 

note: True Truth Productions is now in OKC.

2) Ibid., p. 43.

3) Ibid., p. 40.

4) Ibid., pp. 12,13.

Biological Essentialism - It's Alive‼

Search "biological essentialism" on Yandex and you get 28K hits:

https://yandex.com/search/?text=%22biological+essentialism%22&lr=21366&p=1

Search "biological essentialism jay hall" on Yandex and you get 12 relevant results:

https://yandex.com/search/?text=%22biological+essentialism+jay+hall%22&lr=21366

 

Our latest book Biological Essentialism tackles Aristotle, UnDarwinism, human exceptionalism, worldview, bias, renegade scientists, Dawkins vs. Dawkins, natural kinds, gender confusion and the sanctity of human life among other topics.

My book is available now:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w?ean=9781668541234

https://tinyurl.com/2p8vnmxm

Your thoughtful review on Barnes&Noble is most welcome.

Feel free to contact us for interviews and speaking engagements:

https://totalyouth.us/contact-us

 

#Aristotle #Darwinism #HumanExceptionalism #worldview #bias #scientist  #Dawkins #NaturalKinds #gender #HumanLife #TrueTruth #FreePress  #PhillyStatement

Biological Essentialism - The New Book that will Smash the Darwinian Tower of Babel

 

Biological Essentialism tackles Aristotle, UnDarwinism, human nature, worldview, bias, renegade scientists, Dawkins vs. Dawkins, natural kinds, gender confusion and geology among other topics.

This controversial work is fully illustrated with hundreds of graphics and the innovative ideas are well documented with over 500 reference notes.

Biological essentialism holds that there exists Essential Types of Life (ETL's), such as bears and penguins - these are distinct kinds of organisms that do not have a common ancestor and organic variation has limits.

Would you like to learn more about human exceptionalism, the fruit of evolution and the meaning of life?  If so, this book is for you!

Get your copy today:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biological-essentialism-jay-hall/1140135320

The Argument: Aristotle to Thousands of Years

Aristotle's views on biology support the thesis that Essential Types of Life (horses, frogs, humans etc.) remain stable and vary within limits.  That is, stasis along with change that has a boundary.  There is an excellent episode of In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (BBC) on Aristotle's Biology.  My interview with David Kitts, who taught Philosophy, Geology and History of Science, touches on Aristotle as well.

Now, when we combine this premise, stasis of Essential Types of Life (ETL's), with the fossil record, how do we proceed?  Tertullian pointed to fossils found on mountains as evidence of the Great Flood, the mega-catastrophe Earth endured just a few thousand years ago that even the founder of modern paleontology Georges Cuvier accepted.  Augustine saw fossils as the remains of creatures living before the Flood.  Martin Luther referred to fossils as being the result of the Deluge in his commentary on Genesis.  Agostino Scilla published a work in 1670 on fossils which he illustrated himself which pointed to the Flood as their cause. [1]

But what about the fossil order?  There are places on the earth where ALL the geologic periods overlay the Pre-Cambrian (Pre-Flood).  In fact, 23.2% of the Ordovician is directly on top of the Pre-Cambrian and 18.6% of the Devonian is directly on top of the Pre-Cambrian.  This would seem to imply a shrinking of the traditional geologic time scale.

What if most of the geologic record was part of a single event, how is the general fossil order explained?  Ecological zonation, shallow marine organisms would be in the lower layers, hydrodynamic sorting and the higher mobility of vertebrates seems to be the solution.  That is, there was no "Age of Trilobites" or "Age of Dinosaurs."

Now, if most of the rocks were formed rapidly, that is catastrophically, then we need to drastically reduce the traditional geologic timescale.  Derek Ager was President of the British Geological Association and wrote The New Catastrophism which provides a plethora of examples of rapid geologic action.  If most rocks formed fast, could this planet be young (thousands, not billions of years old)?

Is there a pointer that implies most of the geology came from one event?  Let's look at the Strontium ratio (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) combined with sea level changes through geologic time:

The fact that these graphs match up fits better with the idea the most of the rocks were made from a Singular Event of Rapid Geologic Activity (SERGA).  Did the giant dragonflies live Millions Of Years Ago (MOYA)?  Maybe not. 

For more cool info on the young earth, be sure to get your copy of Is a Young Earth  Possible? today!  Your feedback is most welcome:

  YoungEarthScience@yahoo.com

 

Note:

1) The Deluge Story in Stone by Byron Nelson (Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, MN, 1968), pp. 9, 10, 18.

A Young Earth with Critical Thinking (Rudwick)

Martin Rudwick's book Earth's Deep History: How It Was Discovered and Why It Matters came out in 2014.  So did my book YES - Young Earth Science which refutes much of Dr. Rudwick's content. 

Martin Rudwick is professor emeritus of history at the University of California - San Diego as well as affiliated scholar in the Department of the History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge.

Rudwick seems to think that Aristotle and Plato go against the young earth view.  Both philosophers favored biological essentialism.  See chapter nine in my latest book on how essentialism naturally leads to supporting a planet of relatively recent origin.  Plato wrote of the disaster that destroyed Atlantis.  Once you favor huge catastrophes, then most of the rock record was formed rapidly.  If there is no major time gap between the layers (search "paraconformity"), then the "Millions Of Years Ago" (MOYA) goes extinct.

Interestingly, Earth's Deep History gives a critique of those scientists who go for Young Earth Science (YES) in an appendix at the back of the book.  A more balanced and related book is by my History of Science professor David Kitts, TheStructure of Geology.  Kitts work is one of the primary tomes on the Philosophy of Geology.  Kitts studied with Dobzhansky, GG Simpson (the greatest paleontologist of the 20th Century) and taught in 3 departments at the University of Oklahoma - History of Science (where he was chairman), Geology and Philosophy.

Kitts not only stresses the importance of presuppositions and worldview as geologists practice their trade, but also calmly discusses the challenge of overthrusts (older strata over younger beds) to mainstream science. [1]  Kitts realized that much of our geologic knowledge is limited, even with respect to radioactive dating. [2]  He further pointed out that the philosophical basis for saying that the fossil record "proves" evolution is weak. [3]  You can hear my interview with Dr. Kitts here.

Surprisingly, Rudwick's book does not contain the name "Ager" in the index.  Former President of the British Geological Association, Derek Ager, wrote an entire book on episodic geology - The New Catastrophism.  He even wrote a book as early as 1973 defending the thesis that most formations were created rapidly (The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record).  On the other hand, Rudwick does cover catastrophism to some extent, such as the Great Missoula Flood which was highlighted in a NOVA episode.

Rudwick deals with the Ice Age which is no problem for young earth theory.  I argue in my book Is a Young Earth Possible? that a recent global catastrophe is the key to explaining the Ice Age. [4]  Huge volcanism causes massive evaporation and precipitation.

In chapter ten of Earth's Deep History, Rudwick writes on the oceans.  The ocean floor in many places is covered with Manganese (Mn) nodules which are somewhat like pearls and grow from small bits of basalt and other materials.  The measured growth rates of these nodules indicate an age of only thousands of years. [5]

Rudwick deals with the Cambrian period many times in his book.  In the Cambrian, we find larger life forms compared to the Pre-Cambrian, some up to two feet.  It's a seldom mentioned fact that there is a Great Unconformity at the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary, as you can see in the Grand Canyon, which points to a global catastrophe which agrees with YES. 

Rudwick explains radiometric dating on a number of pages, but does it really deserve the trust as a magic clock that many scientists give it?  Geologist Bates McKee, writing in a book on the geology of the Pacific Northwest (McGraw-Hill), makes this stark admission:    

One might imagine that direct methods of measuring time [radiometric dating] would make obsolete all of the previous means of estimating age, but these new "absolute" measurements are used more as a supplement to traditional methods than as a substitute.  Geologists put more faith in the principles of superposition and faunal succession than they do in numbers that come out of a machine.  If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that that there is something wrong with the machine date. [6] 

Please consider writing a positive review of my latest book, Is a Young Earth Possible?, on Amazon.

So, what do you think about Rudwick's book Earth's Deep History?  Let us know:

  YoungEarthScience@yahoo.com

Notes:

1) The Structure of Geology by David Kitts (SMU Press, Dallas, 1977), pp. xviii, xix, 79-82, 110-113.

2) Ibid., p. 32.

3) Ibid., pp. 160-162.

4) Is a Young Earth Possible? by Jay Hall (Institute for Catastrophism and Tectonics - iCAT, Big Spring, TX, 2019), pp. 264-266.

5) Ibid., pp. 66-68. 

6) quoted in Deep Time Deception by Michael Oard (Creation Book Publishers, Powder Spring, GA, 2019), pp. 105, 107.