Explaining Geology (and science) to laymen

[Job 33:6]

Hi everyone,

Every so often, as a geologist, I think people, or Christians in particular, expect me to talk about the flood of Genesis.

Some expect me to tell them about evidence for a flood that is, in their view, present. Depending on the person.

If you're a scientist who accepts topics like the theory of evolution, or plate tectonics, or the fossil succession etc. How do you respond to lay people, Christians in particular, who inquire about these topics?

I don't want to hurt fellow Christians feelings by simply asserting that their is no evidence for the flood.

But I also don't want to ignore their question.

And to be fair, a lot of lay people are wrapped up in their own careers and in their own business and affairs, They may not have time to adequately investigate these topics on their own. So they may depend on scientists to give them a quick rundown.

So what is the best way to give these people a rundown of science without hurting their feelings?

@Brightmoon @The Barbarian

 

[Strathos]

Well I subscribe to the local flood theory.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well I subscribe to the local flood theory.

Do you find that, if you mention that to people of your church, do you find that people are receptive or familiar with the idea of a local flood? Or is it something that local church goers, in your experience, are confused by?

 

[section9+1]

I believe in the biblical account of the flood and it doesn't bother me if science cannot find evidence for it. I don't see why it should matter.

 

[Job 33:6]

My thought is that, when people ask me about evidence for a global flood, they're probably some kind of a blank slate.

I remember back when I was in highschool, and I had practically no familiarity with science. Zero. Like, I was the guy who knew that there were dinosaurs on TV, but never even considered the question of where they went. Or, maybe I thought that the big bang theory was about exploding stars.

And now, it's been decades since highschool, and people ask me these questions and it's like, how could they even begin to comprehend what we've come to learn over the course of decades, in a matter of minutes in a conversation on a bus or on a short walk?

Where to even begin? Or, if they come from a background familiarity with a global flood, would they even be receptive of even the idea of a local flood? Hm.

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe in the biblical account of the flood and it doesn't bother me if science cannot find evidence for it. I don't see why it should matter.

Maybe the key is to just be willing to love on eachother and to be ok with differences that some may hold.

Maybe this is more of a social dilemma, than it is a scientific one.

 

[Strathos]

Do you find that, if you mention that to people of your church, do you find that people are receptive or familiar with the idea of a local flood? Or is it something that local church goers, in your experience, are confused by?

Most of my church members are actually less literalist than I am. Some of them don't believe in a literal flood at all.

 

[Brightmoon]

I usually try to explain the difference between a graded bed and different layers as most people who accept a Flood think of it as an extended graded bed. Rather than as different layers put down at completely different times . I was surprised that they think of the Grand Canyon that way since its kind of obvious that these layers were put down at different times

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

How about saying it is a matter of faith unsupported by science.

 

[timothyu]

As even Noah and the flood is more about the lineage of the chosen people rather than all, then it seems feasible that the account is more localized than global. Whether it was rain or a flooding of the Mediterranean, Aegean, or even Black Sea areas from an ocean rushing in from the collapse of a sea wall or sinking of plates, is secondary to the story of God's chosen people. Also just as a side note if the species were on the ark then how come the oddball species of the Australian area which are so different in nature from the commonality of rest of the planet, become separated instead of showing up everywhere if they left the same ark?

But really, should anyone be offended because there are two accounts? Are seven ages really 24 hours each when one considers that the chosen people considered a day to be from sunset to sunset, which varies? Narrow-mindedness will be the downfall of all including the religious. Are we not to seek the Kingdom, rather than dwell on the creation? The latter of the two just makes us an addition to the fossil record as relics of the past rather than the wonder of what is to come..

 

[Job 33:6]

I usually try to explain the difference between a graded bed and different layers as most people who accept a Flood think of it as an extended graded bed. Rather than as different layers put down at completely different times . I was surprised that they think of the Grand Canyon that way since its kind of obvious that these layers were put down at different times

Hm yea, that's interesting. I think there is some truth in strathos post as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

As even Noah and the flood is more about the lineage of the chosen people rather than all, then it seems feasible that the account is more localized than global. Whether it was rain or a flooding of the Mediterranean, Aegean, or even Black Sea areas from an ocean rushing in from the collapse of a sea wall or sinking of plates, is secondary to the story of God's chosen people. Also just as a side note if the species were on the ark then how come the oddball species of the Australian area which are so different in nature from the commonality of rest of the planet, become separated instead of showing up everywhere if they left the same ark?

But really, should anyone be offended because there are two accounts? Are seven ages really 24 hours each when one considers that the chosen people considered a day to be from sunset to sunset, which varies? Narrow-mindedness will be the downfall of all including the religious. Are we not to seek the Kingdom, rather than dwell on the creation? The latter of the two just makes us an addition to the fossil record as relics of the past rather than the wonder of what is to come..

A story of God's chosen people. Ok.

 

[section9+1]

I don't try to rewrite what the bible says. I don't see the need for science to support it. I am alright with there being different understandings. It seems like there should be.

 

[UnpopularOpinion]

Well I subscribe to the local flood theory.

God said there will be no more flood so if it was local he lied and Christianity is done there so either you're wrong or God is the lier.

 

[Strathos]

God said there will be no more flood so if it was local he lied and Christianity is done there so either you're wrong or God is the lier.

He said there wouldn't be a flood of such magnitude again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe in the biblical account of the flood and it doesn't bother me if science cannot find evidence for it. I don't see why it should matter.

'I don't care if it is science or not science, I care if it is true or not true': Stephen Meyer

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi everyone,

Every so often, as a geologist, I think people, or Christians in particular, expect me to talk about the flood of Genesis.

Some expect me to tell them about evidence for a flood that is, in their view, present. Depending on the person.

If you're a scientist who accepts topics like the theory of evolution, or plate tectonics, or the fossil succession etc. How do you respond to lay people, Christians in particular, who inquire about these topics?

I don't want to hurt fellow Christians feelings by simply asserting that their is no evidence for the flood.

But I also don't want to ignore their question.

And to be fair, a lot of lay people are wrapped up in their own careers and in their own business and affairs, They may not have time to adequately investigate these topics on their own. So they may depend on scientists to give them a quick rundown.

So what is the best way to give these people a rundown of science without hurting their feelings?

@Brightmoon @The Barbarian

I would not worry too much. They have probably already heard the pop-science version ad-nauseum, and their smiling and nodding is not a sign of their being 'hurt' as much as feeling obliged to be polite.

 

[teddyv]

I don't know if it's weird or not, but I don't think I recall ever being asked to speak about the Flood by other Christians. I've been a practicing geologist for over 25 years. Most people I knew in the churches I've been a member of generally did not have a problem around an old earth. I know it's a sticking point for some and generally will not be outspoken as to my view.

But if someone asks I will simply be honest in stating that my education and experience as a geologist has led me to not accept that the Flood was global. The evidence is simply not there (at least yet). I will suggest that the regional flood is a more likely idea, certainly as a inspiration of the event. The great ice-dam bursts out of the Ice Age are likely culprits.

But I will also suggest that theology, worldview and identity is the main idea being put forward (all through Genesis). Genesis was written to the early Israelites who needed a national identity after being surrounded by and steeped in Egyptian worldview and culture. Genesis lays out their history, borrowing heavily from other ANE myths but effectively redeeming them from the pagan/polytheistic view to the Biblical/monotheistic view.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe the key is to just be willing to love on eachother and to be ok with differences that some may hold.

Maybe this is more of a social dilemma, than it is a scientific one.

Yes. Since God doesn't make one's opinion of Genesis a salvation issue, we can simply disagree and remain brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[timothyu]

Since God doesn't make one's opinion of Genesis a salvation issue

Rejecting the will of God in favour of the will of man as displayed in the Garden is the very foundation of our need for salvation. Salvation is dependent on reversing what occurred in Genesis, putting God's will before the will of man.