Quotes
IJNP has successfully orchestrated the first Flood-focused forum in the half-century since the groundbreaking, 1961 publication of Whitcomb and Morris’ ‘The Genesis Flood’ which began the modern Creation-Science Movement. The online publication of this ‘Flood Science Review’ is the planting of a seed with as much, if not more, potential to result in a harvest that will also serve to reclaim science, renew faith, and restore truth in these last days.
–– David Bassett
For more than 20 years, I have wished that a knowledgeable review panel would carefully evaluate the better-known flood theories.
–– Dr. Walt Brown
I want to thank Joe Bardwell for his wise, courageous, and persevering leadership of this undertaking. I am grateful for all the thoughtful and earnest time and effort the panel members and other authors invested in this endeavor.
–– Dr. John Baumgardner
I thank Joe Bardwell, the reviewers, and the other model builders for a lively forum conducted in a fair and logical way.
–– Mike Oard
My own model has been refined and reformatted as a consequence of the academic and Biblical exercises taking place in this Flood Science Review.
–– Dr. Carl Baugh
Thank you to Joe Bardwell and the IJNP team for hosting this Flood forum. This has been a phenomenal forum which will have a huge impact within the Creation community.
–– Ian Juby
Science thrives when models compete!... I am thrilled with the unavoidable advance that Creation Science will gain through the IJNP process.
–– Philip Budd
There will be no short cuts to finally arrive at a sophisticated Flood model.
–– Mike Oard
A Flood model is in its infancy right now.
–– Mike Oard
Earth science is affected by constantly-changing variables. Most tectonic processes are too large in scope to duplicate by laboratory experiments. Mathematical models are notorious for omitting some variables and ‘tweaking’ others to obtain desired results. All of the Flood models are by necessity extremely speculative and no doubt flawed to varying degrees. To describe one’s own model as ‘bullet-proof’ would be beyond arrogant.
–– Philip Budd
However, a sophisticated Flood model could be a detriment in several ways. First, if the model builder claims that his model is the ‘real’ model of the Flood and oversells it, the model could do more harm, because a model of the Flood cannot claim to be the truth, since we cannot observe the Flood and its mechanism. A model must always be held as an educated guess (an hypothesis of the past). In that way, the people we want to influence will not only understand the nature of models, but also realize that models can change with time. We can then modify the model or even reject it, as new evidence is revealed. Of course, the more geological and geophysical evidence a model explains, the better it should be.
–– Mike Oard
This Review, conducted by In Jesus’ Name Productions (Joe Bardwell) has been an interesting excursion into discovering the development of Flood models, and the interaction that has or hasn’t taken place between the authors of those models. We are at a crossroads in terms of significant scientific breakthroughs regarding Flood geology in particular, and perhaps additionally in the area of pre-Flood meteorology. What becomes clear is that no one individual or group working on particular aspects of the Flood has a sufficient explanation for what might constitute the significant events of the Flood.
–– Raymond Strom
In my view, a comprehensive model will never be achieved if we work alone.... This requires the drawing together of individuals from a variety of expertise. NO ONE IS EXPERT IN ALL AREAS. This approach alone could change the landscape of Creation geology research and involves both professional geologists as well as what might be considered to be casual amateurs to the field of geology. This is not limited to the field of geology. There is a huge opportunity to train all involved in the processes of data collection, observation and integration of that data into working models. I believe we could ‘fill in a lot of gaps’ in the field of scientific discovery. What you may have observed in my Review is that ‘a lot more work needs to be done’. At the same time, this caution does not suggest that we could not construct a broad model that would serve as a platform for a documentary-drama such as The Flood.
–– Raymond Strom
Finally, I must say that participating in this groundbreaking event has been a pleasure and a challenge. It has caused me personally to inspect my own motives in my personal quest for truth... The Flood movie will provide an avenue to allow this to happen in a much more dramatic way. Continuing, Joe, I can’t tell you what a pleasure it has been to get to know you. Your dedication to the sharing of the Gospel to the ends of the Earth is obvious, and it is contagious as I have had opportunity to speak to you via e-mail, phone and in person.
–– Raymond Strom