The Flood of Genesis
Scientific evaluation of the Genesis Flood
account, outside the interpretations of
modern strict-naturalism philosophy
1
Criticisms of the belief in literal interpretation of the Flood of Genesis depend on the philosophy of naturalism (commonly portrayed
as "science" in some developed nations). So what's wrong with using an approach that is popular with many modern scientists?
Believe what you will, but that popular approach to criticizing the creationist interpretation is not scientific; most of
it involves political manuevering for a particular philosophy: strict-naturalism. Please consider the following points.
What
is strict-naturalism philosophy? Applied to biology it includes the General Theory of Evolution; applied to geology
it includes uniformitarianism.
But its essence includes rejection of any creative or judgemental God who has actively created or destroyed the world. A Flood
critic who uses that approach dogmatically--that person can hardly avoid introducing bias,
for Genesis includes, in
its early chapters, both creative and destructive activities of God.
Can the reality of the Genesis account of the Flood of Noah
be evaluated objectively, scientifically? Yes, but only for the person who can separate both the philosophy of scientists from
scientific data and the human traditions of religionists from scriptures. Otherwise it's just the same philosophical debate between
strict-naturalists and strickly-traditional religionists.
MAP of the Flood
of Genesis