Continental Drift Is Great Creation Science

Creationists find inspiration in the example of Alfred Wegener and his theory continental drift. He wasn’t a creationist, but he proposed a theory of continental drift in 1912. At first he had no supporting evidence — other than the easily observable fact that the continents seem to fit together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

He later provided evidence of similar geological structures and fossils on opposite oceanic coastlines, which supported his hypothesis that the land masses has once been joined; but he needed a mechanism that could cause the continents to move around, and without that his idea didn’t go anywhere. Unfortunately, he died before his hypothesis was accepted in the 1950s, after the discovery of evidence like seafloor spreading and mid-ocean ridges. We discussed all that in Klinghoffer: Intelligent Design & Oogity Boogity.

Creationists like to cite Wegener and his theory, because it gives them hope that their own claims will, one day, be validated by science. A good example of this is Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry, ol’ Hambo just posted Plate Tectonics: Creationist Idea Still Makes Accurate Predictions. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

An article appeared recently on [He means “in”] Science News titled, “How the Earth-shaking theory of plate tectonics was born.” This article attempts to trace the history of the now well-accepted idea of plate tectonics. But this historical survey forgot one very important person — the nineteenth-century creationist who first proposed the idea!

Ooooooooooooh! They forgot a creationist who had the idea first! Hambo says:

Gramling [Carolyn Gramling, author of the Science News article] starts her story in 1912 with Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, who argued that “Earth’s landmasses might be on the move.” He was mocked for his idea, primarily because he had no mechanism that could move the land masses.

Creationists love to identify with Wegener, hoping that all their “theories” will one day be accepted, as his was. Hambo tells us:

It wasn’t until the 1960s when irrefutable evidence forced scientists to change their minds that plate tectonics became widely accepted and geology was revolutionized. Today it’s unquestioned, but scientists still operate from a uniformitarian perspective, believing that the very slow rate the continents move today is how they’ve moved for billions of years.

Then he gives us some information we didn’t know before:

Wegener, however, wasn’t the first person to come up with the idea! Fifty-three years earlier, in 1859 (the same year Darwin published Origin of Species), a creationist named Antonio Snider-Pellegrini suggested that the continents have broken apart from a single landmass. Where did his idea come from? Well, Genesis 1:9-10.

Skipping Hambo’s bible quote, his tale of the pre-Wegener creationist continues:

Snider-Pellegrini noticed that Genesis 1 says that God gathered all the waters into one place, suggesting a single landmass originally. [Brilliant!] He also noticed that the continents seem to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Based on this, he proposed that the landmass broke apart during the global flood of Noah’s day when the fountains of the great deep burst forth (Genesis 7:11). He didn’t believe the continents slowly drifted to their current locations — he argued they sprinted there during a global catastrophe! He couldn’t get his work published in English [Hee hee!], so it was originally published in French. This resulted in his ideas not being well known at first, but his ideas were published.

What a great creation scientist! Hambo sermonizes:

The Bible held the clue to revolutionizing our understanding of geology. And if scientists would look to God’s Word — rather than their own fallible understanding — for the true history of the world, think how much further advanced science and knowledge would be! We still understand so much less than we could about this world because the vast majority of geologists (and other scientists) ignore biblical history, believing, instead, in ideas like slow-and-gradual processes over millions of years.

Ooooooooooooh! We’d be so much further ahead if all scientists used the bible. For other great bible science that will one day be accepted by secularists, see The Earth Is Flat! and The Earth Does Not Move!

Hambo babbles on a bit more, but this is already is long enough so we’ll leave him here. However, we won’t forget the lesson of his post: The only true science is bible science. And if you don’t believe that, you’re a Darwinist fool!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

10 responses to “Continental Drift Is Great Creation Science

  1. FWIW, The article seems to be simply derivative From a book chapter by Snelling in 2007: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/can-catastrophic-plate-tectonics-explain-flood-geology/

    In case anyone imagines this kind of thing is harmless, Ham quotes that link here, to argue against policies that aim to reduce human-caused global warming:

    “You see, in a biblical worldview, Antarctica hasn’t been covered with ice sheets for 30 million years. When we start with the history given to us in God’s Word, we understand the Antarctic ice sheets like this: Antarctica moved to its present position in the extreme south during and soon after the global flood, likely due to catastrophic plate tectonics [link as above]…. Sadly, because evolutionists have the wrong interpretation of this ice and these air pockets, politicians end up making bad decisions about supposed man-made climate change because they have a totally wrong understanding of what really is happening (and has happened) in this world.”

  2. Ol’Hambo is dishonest as always – ASP wasn’t exactly the first either. English Wikipedia mentions Abraham Ortelius. There is also

    https://www.britannica.com/science/continental-drift-geology#ref66654

    It shows rather the opposite of Ol’Hambo’s argument: geologists (like all scientists) make progress by neglecting his favourite Holy Book. Meanwhile creacrappers do nothing but endlessly repeating the same [bleep!].

  3. La Création et ses mystères dévoilés was published in 1858, not 1859. I know of no evidence that Snider-Pelligrini sought to publish it in English originally, and the chapter from Snelling’s book to which Paul Braterman linked appears not to make that claim.

  4. Dave Luckett

    Snider-Pellegrini was a catastrophist – ie, he thought that the Earth’s history consisted of long ages, each one terminated by a great catastophe and mass extinction. There is a certain amount of truth in that, but it is far from a factual or exhaustive account. He thought that the break-up of the continents was caused by Noah’s Flood, and the reason for their remarkably rapid dispersal was to balance the Earth. It does not seem to have occurred to him that this required an explanation of what happened to the heat of friction of such huge movements.

    But of course Snider-Pellegrini’s belief is totally at odds with the Genesis stories. If it was in fact published in 1858, it is likely that he was a creationist, at least to the extent that he could not have subscribed to the Theory of Evolution, for Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” had not yet appeared.

    What Ham is doing is cherry-picking, his usual method of dealing with inconvenient data. Snider-Pellegrini, whom Ham claims as a fellow, was no such thing, and his conjecture was at least an honourable attempt to account for observed facts. I think it likely that he’d have been as scornful of Ham’s denial of evidence as we are.

    The fatal weakness was that neither Snider-Pellegrini nor Wegener nor anyone else could explain the observed facts. The continents drifted apart? How? What caused it? Balancing the Earth? Surely that contradicts Newton. That’s no explanation – a fatal objection. Scientific theories explain observations, and must do so in terms other than “and then a miracle occurred”.

    But “and then a miracle occurred” is the total sum of Ham’s message. Oh, and “send money”, of course. Let’s not forget that.

  5. Eddie Janssen

    “Snider-Pellegrini noticed that Genesis 1 says that God gathered all the waters into one place, suggesting a single landmass originally.”

    Today the waters of the earth are gathered into one place but there certainly isn’t a single landmass.
    Is Ham being sloppy or am I missing something?

  6. Dave Luckett

    The actual in-context quote is:

    (Genesis 1:9) “God said, Let the waters under the Heavens be gathered together into one place, so that dry land may appear.”

    So Genesis says specifically that before the waters were gathered together into one place, no dry land had appeared. That is, there was no “single landmass originally.” But there is plenty of evidence for separate continents before Pangaea formed about 335 mya. The earliest known supercontinent was Rodinia, which formed in Precambrian times and began breaking up around 700 mya. The geological history of the earh has seen the formation and break-up of supercontinents at least three times. So if Genesis is actually referring to a real event, it is to the formation of Rodinia, or of an even earlier continent, which was the first large aggregation of dry land.

    (Genesis 1:19) “God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called sea. And God saw that it was good.”

    That is, the “one place” was anywhere the waters were gathered, simply called “sea”, and the land was simply “earth”. There is no suggestion of one ocean, nor of one supercontinent.

    Soometimes they leave stuff out. At other times they put stuff in. Par for the course.

  7. I think that in the Ancient Near East -and in Ancient Greece and Rome, too – the geography had a central land mass surrounded by an ocean. Maybe a couple of islands in the ocean, but no concept of other large land masses. Isn’t that picture conveyed by the TO map of the world?

  8. The massive oil fields being discovered and developed in offshore Guyana and Suriname are right lateral wrench faulted early rift basins formed as South America and Africa spread apart beginning in the Late Cretaceous. There are billions of barrels proved already by ExxonMobil and its partners .
    You bet continental drift works. And the creationoids should buy camels if they don’t like petroleum or the scientists who find it.I’m checking, checking,
    NOPE, I can’t find ANY creation science involved in ANY of those discoveries.
    Oh and hey SC, long time no see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you already done a face dance on the creationists regarding Smithsonian Magazines report that a single gene mutation is all that is needed for a fin to become a limb……….
    You’ve done your happy dance on the creationists alot regarding Tik. This puts all that in an even starker light. I hope I didn’t miss your coverage of that…I’m going to go back and look at your earlier work.
    Cheers……Willy

  9. och will asks: “Have you already done a face dance on the creationists regarding Smithsonian Magazines report that a single gene mutation is all that is needed for a fin to become a limb”

    Not yet. I was going to start with this PhysOrg article: Can a fin become a limb? Single mutations cause zebrafish fins to transform into complex limb-like structures.

  10. woo hoo………….love it SC.