Understand your own Assumptions

I recently read an article in the Institute for Creation Research's periodical Acts & Facts titled "Devils, Dinosaurs, and Squirrel Fossils," by Brian Thomas. Normally, as a creationist, I am very supportive of ICR's publication but, in this case, it would seem that Thomas' presuppositional expectations have trumped his biological research training. The article begins with the statement: "The concept of dinosaurs living in a distant time populated by unique and now mostly extinct plants and animals has captured generations of students and moviegoers, but actual fossil finds keep contradicting this view." Unfortunately, this first sentence is not true, taken the way it is meant. The ecosystems of dinosaurs were "populated by unique and now mostly extinct plants and animals." The key word there being "mostly." It is actually kind of obvious. The vast majority of vertebrates uncovered from dinosaur-bearing fossil sites are, well, dinosaurs. And the habitats of the dinosaurs, dominated by tree ferns and cycads, are unlike most modern ecosystems. It is true that many of the plants and invertebrates found with dinosaurs are alive today, but the assemblages seen in the fossil record are completely unlike those of today. For some examples of a complete list of taxa found in a dinosaur ecosystem, see my paleobiology blog. But to say dinosaur ecosystems were "unique," is a very subjective and relative opinion.

My real beef with the article was Thomas' examples of animals that have been found with dinosaur fossils and are still alive today. He apparently believes that these animals should be synonymous with today's mammals, but that is a very naive assumption. First, he mentions the remarkable Repenomamus robustus fossil, found with young dinosaurs inside its stomach. In Thomas' article, it is implied that Repenomamus is an extinct representative of the Tasmanian devil. Ecologically, perhaps it is. But taxonomically, it is certainly not. Repenomamus has no living relatives and the osteology (features of the bones) are most like that of other extinct mammals (triconodonts). Perhaps Thomas' misinterpretation of the animals identity is due to the fact that it is often illustrated to look something like a Tasmanian devil externally. It probably did, but the bones deny any taxonomic affinity.

Next on Thomas' list are the Euharamiyida. Once again, this is a taxonomically distinct group that superficially resembled squirrels in some ways. Thomas claims that they are indeed "plain old squirrels," but that is untrue. Thomas seems to look no further than the artistic renderings of these creatures. Osteologically, euharamiyidans are most similar to multituberculate mammals, another completely extinct group known for their somewhat rodent-like incisors (but entirely unique molars). Both euharamiyidans and multituberculates looked like rodents superficially, but rodents supposedly outcompeted those groups before the Ice Age.

Thomas briefly mentions "shrew-like" mammals that lived alongside dinosaurs, but wisely avoids concluding that they really were shrews. Rather, they only "closely resemble treeshrews." Closely may be to strong a word. I am personally not familiar with any treeshrew-like mammals from dinosaur-bearing fossil sites, but I am aware that the shrew or hedgehog-like tenrec, which is alive today in Madagascar, has been found in dinosaur-bearing sediments. I'm surprised Thomas didn't mention an indisputable example of a "living fossil" mammal like the tenrec.

Castorocauda was described as analogous to modern beavers in a Science article, as Thomas points out. However, Thomas suggests that "it was a beaver." This is again a misinterpretation of an animals that only superficially resembles a beaver. Really, the tail is the only resemblance to a beaver: the teeth are more like those of a seal. In fact, it is about as far a mammal can be from a beaver as any. As a member of the Cynodontia, it is not often considered a mammal proper but, rather, a "mammal-like reptile" or a "mammaliafrom." It is believed that mammals evolved from creatures like Castorocauda but calling Castorocauda a mammal at all may be stretching things. It possessed many characteristics of reptiles. It just seems that the media is more excited about the animal's beavertail than anything else, so they forgot to mention that it isn't even a true mammal.

The final fossil on Thomas' list is Vintana. He quotes the media authoritatively as they declare an "ancient groundhog-like mammal discovered in Madagascar." And groundhog-like it was. But to say it was a groundhog is extremely speculative at best. First, only a skull is known for the species. As far as one can tell from a single skull, it's resemblance to groundhogs begins and ends with the incisors. A quick look at the skull shatters any hope that it is at all related to a groundhog. Even the way its muscles would be forced to move for operating its jaws is vastly different from any rodent. The skull actually looks very little like a groundhog's, comparatively speaking. Vintana was a unique animal with only a couple relatives, known exclusively from the fossil record. Like some of Thomas' other misidentified mammals, it was similar to the extinct multituberculate group.

Tracks are not usually a good point of evidential proof for living mammals alongside dinosaurs, but Thomas mentions some that he believes were opossum tracks, to his "non-expert eye." I am grateful that he is honest enough to admit that he is not an expert on the subject. And indeed he is not. I don't think Thomas intended to be dishonest or deceptive in any way for the writing of his article, but it demonstrated an appalling lack of thorough research. It is a warning to all of us creationists: we should never to be to quick to find "evidence" for our beliefs. "Evidence" seldom points clearly in any given direction--it is our interpretation that does the pointing. In Thomas' eagerness to find his expected and anticipated evidence for creationism (or his understanding of creationism), he potentially deceived many trusting readers who will parrot his false information to others. When word reaches secular scientists' ears, they will marvel at the ignorance of creationists. Let's avoid any misunderstandings and be more careful with our own presuppositions. In conclusion: "Squirrels, treeshrews, beavers, Tasmanian devils, and other rodent kinds" are not known as "fossils with dinosaurs." It might make you feel better to believe that, but there is no evidence for it. I wanted to let everyone know to avoid any potentially embarrassing conversations in the future.

References for Repenomamus:

Averianov, A.O., and A.V. Lopatin. 2011. "Phylogeny of Triconodonts and Symmetrodonts and the Origin of Extant Mammals." Doklady Biological Sciences 436(1): 32-35.

Li, J., Y. Wang, Y. Wang, and C. Li. 2001. "A New Family of Primitive Mammal from the Mesozoic of Western Liaoning, China." Chinese Science Bulletin 46(9): 782-785.

Montellano, M., J.A. Hopson, and J.M. Clark. 2008. "Late Early Jurassic Mammaliaforms from Huizachal Canyon, Tamaulipas, Mexico." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28(4): 1130-1143.

Reference for the Euharamiyida:

Bi, S., Y. Wang, J. Guan, X. Sheng, and J. Meng. 2014. "Three New Jurassic Euharamiuidan Species Reinforce Early Divergence of Mammals." Nature 514: 579-584.

References for Castorocauda

Ji, Q., Z.X. Luo, C.X. Yuan, A.R. Tabrum. 2006. "A Swimming Mammaliaform from the Middle Jurassic and Ecomorphological Diversification of Early Mammals." Science 311(5764): 1123-1127.

References for Vintana

Krause, D.W., S. Hoffmann, J.R. Wible, E.C. Kirk, J.A. Shultz, W. von Koenigswald, J.R. Groenke, J.B. Rossie, P.M. O'Connor, E.R. Seiffert, E.R. Dumont, W.L. Holloway, R.R. Rogers, L.J. Rahantarisoa, A.D. Kemp, and H. Andriamialison. 2014. "First Cranial Remains of a Gondwanatherian Mammal Reveal Remarkable Mosaicism." Nature 515: 512-517.

Ice Age

Introduction:

Most secular geologists agree that the Ice Age took place about 2.5 million years ago, as Earth’s temperatures slowly declined and glacial ice caps began to accumulate at the poles. On the contrary, many Christians believe that the Bible is very clear; the Earth is only about 6000 years old. Unfortunately, there is no space within this Biblical timeline for giant glaciers to accumulate the way many geologists and climatologists say they did. Accumulating at the rate they appear to today, deep time seems inevitable.

Evidence:

            There is ample evidence that an ice age took place. Giant deposits of rocks, boulders, and other debris are left piled up where the glacier that had entrapped them melted away. Solid granite bears the scars of these massive chunks of rock and ice ground overtop of its surface. Whole communities of giant mammals left their fossils in caves and tar pits across the continents. Some have even been found entrapped within the hardened layers of permafrost in the Russian tundra. The evidence for an Ice Age is so abundant that no one with a degree in the natural sciences denies that it took place. However, the presumption of long eons of time, a belief necessary to remain in step with the prevalent Neo-Darwinian thinking of the day, does not always suit the evidence. For example, no theories with significant evidence have emerged to suggest what might cause 30% of the continents to freeze.

            Interestingly, there is a viable mechanism for the Ice Age, but it is not found in popular scientific literature. Rather, the Bible seems to have the answer. In Genesis chapter 7 describes a catastrophic flood that covered the entire globe with water. It describes water gushing from the core of the Earth, an indication that there was severe geologic activity. With so much water vapor and ash from these super-geysers and volcanoes trapped in the atmosphere, the sun’s rays would not be able to have the affect on the world’s climate that it once had. As Earth began to cool, the water began to condense and fall as snow. With a mechanism like the global flood, the cores of ice found in glaciers could have been at maximum extent within 500 years after the flood. It would seem that the evidence is better in favor of a younger Earth than commonly believed.

            The Bible does not specifically mention an Ice Age, but that is understandable since most Biblical events take place far below the reach of glacial influence. However, the book of Job was written about 500 years after the flood, when the Ice age was likely reaching its climax. Snow is remarkably rare in the Middle East today, but God speaks to Job about snow and ice in chapter 38, verses 29 and 30, as if that righteous man were very acquainted with such weather. It is not too unlikely that Job was familiar with snowy days in winter.

Conclusion:

The Bible claims to be the words of the Creator. Jesus himself, the namesake of the Christian faith, recited from ancient Biblical passages as if they were reliable facts. If the Ice Age really did take place millions of years ago, it would undermine the claims that Jesus and the Bible make about Scripture’s reliability. The Ice Age, however, is no reason to doubt the Bible. While those who hold to unbiblically long ages sweat over hypotheses to explain Ice Age mechanisms, those with a Bible-based timeline can rest easy that the words of God provide an obvious answer. Perhaps the book of Job, written about 500 years after the Flood, was referring to the Ice Age in chapter 38, verses 29 and 30.

Reference:

Oard, M. 2006. “Where does the ice age fit?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book, pp. 207-219. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 207-219.

The Global Flood and the Geological Column

Introduction

         The geological column has long been recognized as a potential problem for creationism. The seeming progression from superficially more “primitive” organisms to creatures considered to be “higher” on the evolutionary tree of life has puzzled creationist scientists into a state of debate and divergence. Theories abound. Some creationists caution against using the geological column at all (Woodmorappe 1999 and Reed et Froede 2003), but the various fossil-bearing rock formations, such as the Scollard Formation in Saskatchewan, clearly represent differential ecosystems and the successive layers, where they can be seen, demonstrate at least some form of transition in faunal species. How do these distinct ecosystems, captured in geological formations around the world, fit in with a Biblical framework of history?

         Creationists use secular names, like Mesozoic or Devonian, to reference strata that are normally used by secular scientists to reference ages (in hundreds of millions of years). However, for ease of use, creationists retain the names as they apply to those particular layers in the geological column, without regard for secular dates. Most creationists do not accept a age of more than about six thousand years for the age of the Earth.

The Pre-Flood Boundary: Upper Mantle

         Where the global Flood should begin in geology is not as hotly debated as where it should end, but it is still an important question. Geologist Max Hunter hypothesized that the natural cause, used by God, of the global Flood’s onset was the temporary lowering of the Earth’s gravitational constant, causing the melting and differentiation of the mantle (among other things). Additionally, he tied this frame of thought in with the decreasingly popular Canopy Theory, which states there was a layer of water suspended above the atmosphere and acknowledges the hypothesis of a rainless pre-Flood world. With all these assumptions in mind, Hunter believes that even the uppermost layers of the mantle, above the transition zone, are Flood-formed (Hunter 2000). However, most creationists now believe that it is primarily sedimentary layers that should be attributed to the Flood.

The Pre-Flood Boundary: Middle Precambrian

         In an extensive study of the geology of Israel, geologist Andrew Snelling concluded that the onset of the Flood, at least in that country, correlated with a major unconformity in the center of supposed Precambrian strata (Snelling 2010). This disrupted layer, separating two very different kinds of rock, show clear signs of catastrophic, volcanic activity. He notes that these trends are also analogous to strata of the same secular age in North America. Even more recently, Snelling and microbiologist Georgia Purdom indicate that fossil stromatolites, confirmed to be biotic, were possibly growing by day three of the creation week (Snelling et Purdom 2013). Indeed, in light of Snelling’s meticulous research on stromatolite growth and Israeli geology, it seems fairly unlikely that Max Hunter’s excessively catastrophic model played much of a part in Flood geology at all. Rather, the Flood very likely began during the Precambrian, the most basal member of the geological column.

The Flood Deposits

         Exactly how the floodwaters progressed in biological effect on the earth in the inundation period of the Flood remained almost completely unaddressed until the 21^st century. Geologist Kurt Wise noticed the correlation while studying coal formation (Wise 2008). He recognized that the secular geological column, at least up to the Mesozoic (dinosaur-bearing strata), correlated well with the shift of habitat from marine to inland. To Wise, the majority of stromatolites were buried as the continental edges collapsed during the earliest stages of the Flood. Cambrian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Devonian sea life died in a similar way, buried as shallower portions of the continental shelf collapsed. As the floodwaters progressed, they soon broke down the “floating forest” swamp-life of the Carboniferous, the coastal dunes of the Permian, and, finally, the inland regions, represented by the Mesozoic. It is an amazing revelation; so obvious it is a wonder other creationists did not recognize it before. But why should Wise stop at the Mesozoic, the last layers dinosaur fossils are found? Why did he exclude the Cenozoic, a predominantly mammal-fossil series, from his model? It seems Wise assumed the end of the Mesozoic was the end of the Flood, a stance that is surprisingly controversial.

The Post-Flood Boundary: Early to Late Paleozoic

         Creationists have, for the most part, been supportive of the majority of the fossil record as Flood-deposited. Some of the early attempts to define the post-Flood boundary by creationists are very presumptive. In particular, the presence of animal tracks in sedimentary layers was understood to be a serious challenge to a Flood interpretation. Paul Garner and many other creationists propagated the idea that fossilized tracks and nests could not have been formed during the global Flood, under the assumption that floodwaters would obliterate them (Garner 1996 and Garner et al. 2003). Thus, they concluded that the Flood must have ended at the Paleozoic (beneath dinosaur-bearing strata) and Mesozoic junctions or even as deep as the Devonian strata, where animal tracks are reportedly found. The idea that all sedimentary layers above the Paleozoic has not been accepted well by many creationists because it seemed to fail to take into account the immense amount of sedimentary strata overlaying the Paleozoic deposits. In fact, creationists have confirmed that certain formations, such as the Tapeats Sandstone, have analogous layers in the United States and Israel (Snelling 2010b). Therefore, most scientists agree that at least the majority of the geologic column was formed during the global Flood.

The Post-Flood Boundary: Late Cenozoic

         With a Paleozoic post-Flood boundary doubtful, some authors concluded that all sedimentary layers were deposited during the Flood, pushing the date to the opposite extreme in the uppermost Cenozoic (Holt 1996 and Froede et Reed 1999). More contemporary articles have agreed with this stance, including many published by atmospheric scientist Michael Oard. By developing a set of criterion, such as sedimentation or fossilization independent of the geologic column, Oard concluded that most fossils were formed during the Flood, including many of those considered to be from the Cenozoic layers (Oard 2007). But should the geological column be taken so lightly? Oard’s desire to be uninfluenced by secular thinking may have caused him to make a flawed assumption: no large catastrophes took place after the Flood.

The Post-Flood Boundary: K/T

         Possibly the most widespread theory on the post-Flood boundary is that the Cretaceous (end of the Mesozoic)/Tertiary (Cenozoic) boundary correlates roughly to the end of the Flood. This darkened layer, conventionally believed to mark the place of a giant asteroid impact or volcanic eruption, is commonly referred to the K/T boundary. One of the most powerful evidences for a K/T post-Flood boundary is the distribution of the geological formations. Many of the formations in the Mesozoic, under the K/T, are distributed across multiple continents, while those in the Cenozoic, tend to be more localized, a fact acknowledged even by proponents of a later post-Flood boundary (Oard 2010a). But there are some serious objections to this interpretation.

         Michael Oard continues to be strongly apposed to the K/T boundary as the end of the Flood. Oard believes that widespread erosion and volcanic activity evidenced in Cenozoic layers means they must have been deposited during the Flood (Oard 2011). In particular, Oard annually discovers examples of uplift in Cenozoic strata (Oard 2012, Oard 2013b, Oard 2013c). However, the uplift of these regions, demonstrated by the slant of the sediments exposed on hillsides, could still be explained as a post-Flood event. In each of Oard’s articles he seems to assume that the world returned to a tranquil sate relatively rapidly after the Flood. Both late Cenozoic and K/T proponents agree that the Flood, being a worldwide event, was amazingly catastrophic. One of the prominent after affects of the Flood would be continental unrest, involving much volcanism, and perhaps uplift. Catastrophic erosion would also be expected in the years after the Flood since large inland lakes, restrained by natural dams, broke free (Snelling et Vail 2010 and Oard 2000).

         Another question brought up by Oard is, if the Cenozoic is post-Flood, why are mammals primarily absent from supposed Flood deposits (Oard 2010b)? This question is not unanswerable from the K/T proponent’s perspective, though. For example, the Bible clearly portrays people in abundance before the global Flood but no human fossils are found in Mesozoic or Paleozoic layers. Perhaps the ecosystems hosting mammals were concentrated in only a few locations, like humans, and did not chance to be in favorable location for fossilization (such as a mountain top). Indeed, creationist paleontologist Marcus Ross observed clear biological succession of the kinds of animals present in each layer in North American Cenozoic strata (Ross 2012). He noticed that each successive formation contained, primarily, the same mammal genera as the layer below it. However, in each successive layer, there were a few new genera that had been absent in the underlying strata. This progressed to the point of nearly completely contemporary genera in the uppermost layers, indicating a clear succession of environments into the present. This is powerful evidence that the Cenozoic is not, in fact, attributable to the global Flood, which describes all life dying off, but, rather, the colonization of the planet just prior to the Ice Age. Michael Oard published a rebuttal of Ross’ paper (Oard 2013a) but used essentially the same arguments he has since the early 2000s.

         Proponents of a K/T post-Flood boundary often recognize the clear climatic changes throughout the Cenozoic layers as the earth reputably became cooler, approaching the Ice Age. However, Oard points out that evolutionists make such claims of progressive climatic change for Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata as well. The environmental objection has a simple explanation, though, since Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata tend to be more geologically disrupted, the evidence often quoted for climatic change in those layers is not nearly as substantiated as for the Cenozoic.

The Post Flood Boundary: Mantle

         Some creationists carry the idea of paleobiotic succession even farther, suggesting that the geologic column represents a succession of ecosystems that developed progressively after the global Flood (Robinson 1996). However, proponents of that view are faced with similar problems as secular scientists, such as the worldwide distribution of certain geologic formations. Additionally, the vast extent and depth of the geological layers in some places means additional time to the age of the Earth, beyond the exegetical six thousand, needs to be invoked. Because of that many advocates of the Recolonization Theory do not take the Biblical genealogies absolutely literally and extend the age of the Earth to around twenty thousand years.

Conclusion

Creationist scientists have postulated many theories on how the geological column should be considered in light of Biblical Flood geology. Exactly how lithology correlates to the global Flood is a very inexact science, since it was not observable. Ultimately, every geologic formation should be analyzed independently and creationists should never presume that the Flood correlates exclusively to any member of the secular geological column. Creationists should be cautious accepting secular conclusions, such as the geologic column, paleofaunal succession, or climatic change.

There are two primary creationist views on the post-Flood boundary. Atmospheric scientist Michael Oard has written consistently and extensively, arguing for a late Cenozoic post-Flood boundary and demonstrating many evidences that do point to certain Cenozoic formations as Flood deposits. However, paleontologist Marcus Ross has recently begun to publish convincing arguments for an end to the Flood closer to the K/T boundary. Therefore, in light of Ross’ paleontological analysis of genera in the Cenozoic and the habitat distinction between pre and post K/T boundary, the end of the Mesozoic likely correlates at least partially to the end of deposition stage of the Flood. Both Oard and Ross have arranged excellent perspectives on the geological column and either one is a logical and absolutely possible explanation for the geological column. The location of the post-Flood boundary is certainly not “set in stone.”

         References

Froede, C.R., Jr. and Reed K.J. 1999. “Assessing creationist stratigraphy with evidence from the Gulf of Mexico”. Creation Research Society Quarterly36(2):51-60.

Garner, P. 1996. “Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary? Implications of dinosaur nests in the Mesozoic”. Technical Journal 10(1):101-106.

Garner, P.A., M. Garton, R.H. Johnston, S.J. Robinson, and D.J. Tyler. 2003. “Dinosaur footprints, fish traces, and the Flood”. Technical Journal17(1):54-59.

Holt, R.D. 1996. “Evidence for a late Cainozoic Flood/post-Flood boundary”. Technical Journal 10(1):128-167.

Hunter, M.J. 2000. “The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the base of the earth’s transition zone”. Technical Journal 14(1):60-74.

Oard, M.J. 2000. “Only one Lake Missoula flood”. Technical Journal14(2):14-17.

Oard, M.J. 2007. “Defining the Flood/post-Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 21(1):98-110.

Oard, M.J. 2010a. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 1: introduction and the scale of sedimentary rocks”. Journal of Creation 24(2):95-104.

Oard, M.J. 2010b. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 2: paleoclimates and fossils”. Journal of Creation 24(3):87-93.

Oard, M.J. 2011. “Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 3: volcanism and plate tectonics”. Journal of Creation 25(1):57-62.

Oard, M.J. 2012. “The Uinta Mountains and the Flood: part I. Geology”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 49(2):109-121.

Oard, M.J. 2013a. “Geology indicates the terrestrial Flood/post-Flood boundary is mostly in the Late Cenozoic”. Journal of Creation 27(1):119-127.

Oard, M.J. 2013b. “Surficial continental erosion places the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the late Cenozoic”. Journal of Creation 27(2):62-70.

Oard, M.J. 2013c. “The Uinta Mountains and the Flood: part II. Geomorphology”. Creation Research Society Quarterly 49(3):180-196

Reed, J.K. and C.R. Froede Jr. 2003. “The uniformitarian stratigraphic column—shortcut or pitfall for creation geology?”. Creation Research Society Quarterly40(2):90-98.

Robinson, S.J. 1996. “Can Flood geology explain the fossil record?”. Technical Journal 10(1):32-69.

Ross, M.R. 2012. “Evaluating potential post-Flood boundaries with biostratigraphy—the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary”. Journal of Creation 26(2):82-87.

Snelling, A.A. 2010a. “The geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 1. The pre-flood rocks”. Answers Research Journal 3:165-190. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_pre-Flood.pdf (accessed October 10, 2014).

Snelling, A.A. 2010b. “The geology of Israel within the Biblical Creation-Flood framework of history: 2. The flood rocks”. Answers Research Journal3:267-309. https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/geology_Israel_Flood.pdf (accessed October 10, 2014).

Snelling, A. and G. Purdom. 2013. “Survey of microbial composition and mechanisms of living stromatolites of the Bahamas and Australia: developing criteria to determine the biogenicity of fossil stromatolites”. Answers in Depth 8. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/survey-of-microbial-composition-and-mechanisms-of-living-stromatolites-of-the-bahamas-and-australia-/ (accessed October 9, 2014).

Snelling, A.A. and T. Vail. 2010. “When and how did the Grand Canyon form?”. In: Ham, K. ed. The New Answers Book 3. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 173-185.

Wise, K. 2008. “Sinking a floating forest”. Answers3(4):40-45.

Woodmorappe, J. 1999. Studies in Flood Geology: A Compilation of Research Studies Supporting Creation and the Flood. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

Midwest Natural History

Various skeletons representative of the Ice Age fauna grace the halls of the Chicago Field Museum.

I’ve only visited the state of Indiana once in my life—and that for ten weeks. Due to the length of my stay and the nature of my travels, I felt sufficiently acquainted with the land to deeply contemplate it’s past. Usually I reserve such intimate deliberations for moments when a warm campfire casts reflections on my eyes, and certainly I was able to experience that in Indiana. But I think it is the broad connection of the region to other areas like Wisconsin and Minnesota that prompted a feeling of liberty to delve into the region’s dark past.

My purpose in the Midwest this summer was not one of lay apathy and leisure; rather, I had come to assist the University of Notre Dame in their brave attempts to reduce the human impact on the North American Continent. Everything in nature is interconnected in some way, including human society. Ecologists like Gary Lamberti, David Lodge, and Jennifer Tank have long recognized such interrelation among living things and places and it was my pleasure to work with them as an intern. The changes they were able to initiate through their efforts are certainly worthy of recognition.

Between accompanying the virtuous members of Dr. Tank’s lab on field trips and the outings of the students into the surrounding countryside, I was soon becoming reacquainted with familiar faces from my last visit to the Midwest, some four years ago. Between my duties as a stream ecologist, I went wading through the wetlands, spying on the turtles, teasing hog-nosed snakes, and bird watching on Lake Michigan’s cobblestone shore. The call of Cardinalis flooded my mind with nostalgia; summer days at Grandma’s house in Wisconsin. A slough near the campground where I was staying rang with the breaking strings of a multitude of banjos: Rana clamitans. I spent hours roaming the lakeshore for those amphibians as a child. However, I really began to contemplate the history of the land, the geological shifts and ecological transfers over time, when I visited the Field Museum in Chicago.

The museum itself had dedicated nearly an entire floor to Earth’s history. The halls were adorned with spectacular examples of Charles R. Knight’s paintings and mounted skeletons and model dinosaurs brought the exhibits vividly alive in my imagination. However, the entire exhibit had been constructed with an atheistic mindset. One exhibit read, “See what 50 million years of evolution can do.” I looked, but couldn’t see what 50 million years of evolution had done.

Naturally, the Christian naturalist is skeptical of popular thinking in science. After all, most of the information researched and portrayed in secular, public institutions is performed from a godless perspective. Fortunately, Christian’s are of an older sort of naturalist—before Mr. Darwin—inclined to praise the Creator for his handiwork. It is unconventional, but it hones the evidence into a manageable form, closer to truth. But I digress.

Looking up into the massive head and jaws of Sue the Tyrannosaurus rex at the Field Museum, I couldn’t help but envisage what sort of ecological succession had taken place in the state. Of course, on a Biblical timeline, fossils likely only fall into one of two categories; those formed during the global flood described in Genesis 6-9 or after it. I was surprised to discover that the only fossils in Indiana that seem to be from a time before the global flood are reflective of marine sediments, primarily invertebrates, their shells preserved in the limestone.

It is hard to say exactly what the midwestern part of North America, part of a supercontinent at that time, was like before the flood. After all, there is such a diversity of ecosystems preserved around the world, and the distributing affect of the floodwaters so poorly understood by anyone, all one can say with any confidence is that those fossilized organisms really did live on the biosphere at some point in the past. Obviously, I need to put a whole lot more thought into the topic of sedimentology if I want to get an accurate picture of the world before the flood. As to what happened after the flood, a more detailed story emerges.

The Midwest really only become the Midwest after the flood. Before that, North America didn’t exist as a continent, more than likely. The flood left Indiana and the rest of the planet stripped of life. It would have been a very alien looking world. Using evidences seen around the continent today, the change that underwent in the Midwest over the last 4000 years can be catalogued with some accuracy:

Barren ground stretched as far as the eye could see. From space, the grey earth looked something like it does today—but not exactly. The continents were slightly ajar and their cores were littered with giant lakes. A particularly massive body of water loomed near present day Arizona. East of the Rocky Mountains, alive with the smoke of volcanic unrest, the sky would have reflected on the giant lakes dotting the place we would one day call the Great Plains. About 4,400 years ago, it looked more like the Great Lakes were a worldwide feature. But those particular lakes didn’t appear to be on North America’s face at all.

The air of this empty earth was absurdly humid. The sky was darkened with moisture and ash from spastic volcanoes. However, the life God created to inhabit this earth is tenacious. Within the first year, green smears appeared. By around 4,300 years ago, full communities of plants were flourishing and some of the smaller, more prolific creatures had been spreading out from the Middle East.

But North America wasn’t devoid of animal life, even at this early stage. The storms raging around the globe reflected on the recently violent past, but amid the tossing waives of those early lakes a flash of silver appeared in the water. Some intrepid creatures survived the brutality of the global disaster that raked the world of life. Adapted to aquatic lifestyles, a variety of fish were stranded in dark, muddy pools across America. These warm, humid environments took on a shape more like the African Congo than temperate America, as the plant and animal communities adapted.

In a moist swath of land from the Midwest to the coasts of Washington and British Columbia, the abundance of lakes produced a lush forest. Some of the first colonizers, like the fish trapped in the lakes by receding waters, would have been familiar to Americans. Gar, bowfin, perch, sunfish, and catfish species witnessed the arrival of land animals, moving in from Europe and Asia via a land bridge across Greenland. Aquatic invertebrates also survived the global flood, with many species of worms, clam, and snail beginning to flourish in the lakes. Unfortunately, many of these pioneers never made it into the present. Skates went extinct in North America, even after they’d survived the global flood.

Not surprisingly, insects took hold of the new land quickly. Turning over a log or walking near a streamside in what would one day become Washington would reveal a micro-community essentially the same as those today, including spiders, dragonflies, damselflies, grasshoppers, beetles, mosquitos, butterflies, moths, wasps, bees, ants, and many other familiar faces. The air was alive with the buzz of countless insects. Frogs, salamanders, crocodiles, lizards, and snakes moved into their perspective ecological niches as well, but most of these were species unfamiliar to us. Turtles, in particular, flourished in the ideal lake-riddled habitat. Birds weren’t as common as some of the smaller, more adaptable creatures, but flamingos, owls, hawks, cuckoos, rails, and curlews found the new watery world to their liking. There were a few stranger birds as well, like the six-foot tall, mega-beaked bird Gastornis.

While some of these scaly and feathery creatures lived on in other parts of North America, the mammalian fauna was nearly completely unique. Brontotheres, massive tusked ungulates with heads ornamented in horns and growths, soon arrived to rule as the largest animals of their day. Many other strange hooved creatures, like tapirs, also stepped lightly through the forests. The most common predators were the creodonts, a diverse group of mammals that, thanks to their ability to spread and diversify rapidly, filled the ecological niche of the carnivores we see today. Unfortunately, as time progressed, these lakes began to drain and dry. The shifting unrest of the continental shelves made life difficult. Eventually, nearly the entire fauna died out and their ecological niches were replaced, as the land grew more open.

            With the disappearance of the first colonizers, more familiar faces began to take a hold in the drying lake belt. True carnivores, like cats and dogs, replaced the dwindling creodonts. Horses, camels, and rodents replaced the more bizarre tropical creatures of earlier days. However, the pig-like oreodonts, sometimes called “ruminating hogs,” proved more tenacious, living alongside their more modern neighbors before any large grazers moved to replace them.

A little farther south in the lake belt, little three-toed horses grazed alongside a variety of small rhino and camel species and burrow-digging land beavers occupied before the days of prairie dogs. The monstrous entelodonts, like overgrown, steroidal warthogs, terrorized the smaller animals with their looks, if nothing else. Before long, horses had diversified into about a half dozen genera and camels and deer were keeping up as new habitats opened the door for new species. One deer even had saber teeth, its relatives living on in Asia today. The strange bear-dogs, which looked as their name suggests, hunted many of the herbivores. Among the birds taking advantage to the more open landscape were crowned cranes and secretary birds, both now limited to Africa. At 4,200 years ago, the Serengeti had come to America.

In reality, the Midwest was far overdue for a shift to more contemporary faunal styles. The eastern coast already had a good community of baleen and toothed whales. The southeast had alligators, already developing into forms that looked much like their modern counterparts. Other reptiles included familiar snake families and turtles so like those living in the east today that they have been given the same names: painted turtles, box turtles, snapping turtles, and sliders. Among mammals, shrews, moles, weasels, badgers, rabbits, and rodents had already made themselves at home alongside the stranger camels, horses, tapirs, rhinos, peccaries, and sloths.

Larger new arrivals appeared in the south, discreetly migrating down from the northern land bridge, apparently. Saber-toothed cats, shovel-tusked elephants, and short-faced bears were a foreshadowing of days to come when things would get even larger.

As massive eruptions of the restless earth continued to influence constant succession of ecological communities, the west was soon following suit to the east. Raccoons, cats, dogs, and pronghorn antelope joined the dwindling members of the older inhabitants. Mastodons and beavers quickly joined the train, outnumbering the old warm-weather creatures, and no wonder; the climate was cooling. Trees on the growing plains were switching over to classics of temperate conditions. Oaks, sycamores, maples, gingkoes, and elms dotted the plains. Many would remain staples of North America into the future.

Something big was coming. The land had grown dry. The humidity and warmth were fleeing southward. Lakes shrunk and dried into desert basins. Water had faded from the land—but the ocean didn’t rise. The water was building up somewhere else.

The global flood had created an environmental time bomb. All the humidity and moisture in the air following the flood had given the world the false impression that things would return to the warm tropical climate of ancient times. However, all the volcanic activity caused by shifting continents during and after the flood had filled the atmosphere with debris and suspended water. The hazy skies were a warning that the sun was not able to do the warming prescribed to it. The moisture was finally falling, but not as rain on parched plains. Snow was turning Canada white.

As the world began cooling more quickly, mastodons increased their range and more modern varieties of horse and camel replaced the little three-toed species. Voles, beavers, and other modern rodents became mainstream. Carnivores, like the bone-crushing dogs and dirk tooth cats, completely replaced creodonts and other ancient carnivores. In the Midwest specifically the mammals were still strange to modern faunas, including rhinos, dogs, short-faced bears, and peccaries, the smaller inhabitants of the modern Midwest, like leopard frogs, had basically been established.

Along the coasts, as far south as Baja California, walruses and fur seals were hulling up on the beaches. By 4000 years ago, the Ice Age was in full swing. Unfortunately, the impenetrable glaciation of the north swept down into the Midwest and prohibited Ice Age life from inhabiting the barren white sheets of ice. However, there were some pockets, caused by hot springs and geography, were Ice Age creatures found a foothold. As always, the invertebrates held on through the cold. Clams, snails, and slugs moved slowly around pools of warm water emanating from the springs. Some smaller animals like mink, ferrets, prairie dogs, voles, moles, coyotes, wolves, camels, oxen, and lamas populated the shrubbery, but glaciers weren’t the only giants of this time. Megafauna ruled as the aptly named colossuses of the interglacial plains. Giant short-faced bears, over twelve feet tall, took advantage of weaker animals as two species of mammoths aggregated by waterholes.

When the earth finally returned to a more normal climate, the Midwest was restored to open plains. Interestingly, it wasn’t kept that way by purely natural causes. As trees started to encroach on the plains, some creatures found their preferred prey becoming more rare, moving west. One species in particular would not stand by to watch the plains encroached upon. It was the first time the environment in North America was impacted by humans. They started fires on purpose.

Over the years, new cultures infiltrated the Americas. As megafauna died off, early Americans developed new ways of life. Distinct tribes of people began to become established around 3500 years ago and 500 years later, people, divvied up into various territories, occupied the whole continent. Megafauna, with the exception of bison, grizzlies, and a few others, went extinct from the increased territorial pressure. Around 2000 years ago, most of the tribes that early explorers would encounter had formed. While farming in the Americas started nearly 3000 years before European settlers arrived, the Midwest natives’ farming of land probably didn’t start until only 1500 years before westerners saw corn for the first time. But when they did, around 500 years ago, the newfound food was irresistible. Within a mere 350 years or so, the entire Midwest, with the exception of a few pockets, had been engulfed in western culture’s insatiable appetite.

Naturally, I feel fairly strongly that mankind’s negative effect on the natural history of the Midwest should be reversed, but there seems to be little chance of that happening anytime soon. Extinction and change, even man-made change, have been a part of our changing planet since the beginning. In essence, anything negative that happens to nature is directly or indirectly caused by the evil of humanity. After all it was Adam’s sin that brought a curse on nature, and it was mankind’s wickedness that brought the global flood. Not surprisingly, sin is again become very commonplace in our culture. Lets be careful that we don’t execute God’s judgment for him through abuse of the planet.