Book Review: Baby Dinosaurs on the Ark?

KYLE BUTT, M.Div.

CREATION VS. EVOLUTIONDINOSAURS

Earlier this year, Eerdmans Publishing Company released a book written by Janet Kellogg Ray titled Baby Dinosaurs on the Ark? I read a brief review of it,1 my interest was piqued by the title, and I ordered it. After carefully reading the book, I was taken aback by its pro-evolutionary approach and utter disdain for legitimate Creation science. I believe the approach presented in the book to “reconcile” evolution and the Bible is one of the least reasonable and most intellectually destructive ways to deal with the subject.

Under normal circumstances, I would not write a book review that is as lengthy as the one you are currently reading. It quickly became evident, however, that the views presented in the book are held by many Christians, and there is a serious need to address them. The author of the brief review I read wrote a glowing appraisal of the book. He stated: “The last half of the book is where the author really gets humming. She describes the evidence and explains the simplicity of a scientific narrative versus the contortions of fitting the facts into the young earth creationists narrative.”2 He, like the author of the book he reviews, completely discounts the validity of Creation science and states that young Earth Creation is a “polar extreme” that “keeps our young people from realizing that one can be both a scientist and a Christian.” He and Ray both use the term “science” to mean “evolutionary science,” ignoring the vast amount of scientific evidence that stands in stark contrast to inaccurate modern evolutionary interpretations. The fact that the periodical that ran the review did so without objection likely indicates that the views of the book are widespread and need to be answered.

Science = Evolution?

Throughout the book, the author extols the values of science. She writes that science is “self-correcting,” “truth seeking,” that it “does not advocate for a position for the sake of winning,” and that it “seeks to know what is.”3 While those laudable traits certainly should be true of science, we then discover that “science” as it is presented in the book actually only corresponds to “evolutionary science.” And the reader quickly realizes that the author holds a materialistic view of science—one that does not seek to “know what is,” but one that seeks to limit “scientific” answers to only naturalistic explanations. For instance, the book says, “Science depends on reality—the natural world” (30). Additionally, the concept of “science” is often equated with evolution or evidence that supposedly proves evolution. One reads, “More troubling is the growing number of Americans who no longer believe they can accept science and also be a person of faith.” The next paragraph states: “What is happening in our public conversations and in our shared collective impressions that implies a person who accepts evolution must reject religion, and conversely, a religious person must reject science?” (19). Notice how rejecting evolution is the equivalent of rejecting “science.”4

The reader then learns that one of the primary reasons we know that accurate science must include evolutionary teaching is because no peer-reviewed journals ever publish material that refutes it. We read, “Science evidence is not considered valid unless it has been put before the broader body of scientists in the field of study” (31). In a discussion of chromosomal fusion that is presented to validate human evolution, we read that Creation scientists have responses to the information, but such responses are dismissed  because “none of the articles or the research cited have (sic) been published in peer-reviewed science journals—this despite the fact many of the articles from both organizations are written by Nathaniel Jeanson, holder of a PhD in cell biology from Harvard.” The text continues, “Again—I cannot emphasize this enough—none of the articles refuting genetic evidence are (sic) published in peer-reviewed science journals. All are published in creationist journals” (166).

The suggestion is, of course, that it cannot be science if it is not published in pro-evolutionary science journals that refuse to consider anything scientific unless it offers only naturalistic explanations.5 It is ironic that Ray highlights that Nathaniel Jeanson is extremely qualified to write on the subject, but his materials continue to be rejected. It seems not to resonate with the author that maybe Dr. Jeanson’s research is rejected, not due to its lack of scientific rigor, but to a bias in the peer-review process toward any suggestion of Creation. It also becomes evident that the author has seemingly no respect for the scientific accuracy and legitimacy of any “creationist” journals and Creation scientists, even though the journals are peer-reviewed and the scientists are highly credentialed. This rejection of all things creation is immediately apparent in the discussion of the documentary Is Genesis History?, in which Ray explains that the film features “seventeen speakers from various fields.” Within a few short sentences she completely dismisses their work, in spite of the fact that many of the speakers hold Ph.D.s in the exact fields of research that they discuss, such as paleontology, geosciences, and geology, and are presenting very plausible scientific interpretations of the physical evidence.

Baby Dinosaurs on the Ark?

The book’s discussion of dinosaurs on the Ark provides an excellent example of how the author approaches conflict between evolutionary science and a Creation science approach to the world. In the author’s view, dinosaurs are separated from people by millions of years and fitting them into the Genesis account of Creation and the global Flood is problematic. She writes with notable ridicule that any literal reading of the Flood means that dinosaurs and all other kinds of animals must have been on the Ark. Since some of those dinosaurs would have been huge, what is a Creation scientist who believes in a literal reading of Genesis to do with all of this? “Baby dinosaurs solve all the problems. Baby dinosaurs make the science fit Genesis” (18). And that is how it is left. In the book’s foreword, which is written by Deborah Haarsma, the president of Biologos6, we read: “Secular scientists have only to hear about baby dinosaurs on a boat with humans to decide they can’t take Christianity seriously” (ix). Supposedly, the idea of baby dinosaurs on the Ark is so ridiculous and outlandish that there is no possible way it could be scientific, regardless of the historic evidence for dinosaur and human co-habitation7, the problems with old Earth dating methods8, and the fact that the concept of baby dinosaurs certainly does solve the “space” problem on the Ark that it addresses.

Compare that response to the book’s dealing with soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils. Around the globe, numerous dinosaur bones have been discovered that contain soft tissue. The first major discovery of this phenomenon was done by Mary Schweitzer. We are told, from an evolutionary view, that these fossils must be at least 65 million years old. Yet the tissue we find in them often retains its elasticity and suppleness. The idea that such tissue could be preserved for 65 million years defies every form of preservation ever seen in any natural environment. Yet, in one sentence, the author writes, “Most importantly, Schweitzer and others have demonstrated several processes capable of preserving soft tissues in ancient fossils” (74). No, they have not. We are informed, however, that having baby dinosaurs on the Ark to solve the “space” problem is much more unscientific and unreasonable than positing “several processes” that can preserve dinosaur soft tissue for 70 million years. The careful reader consistently finds the author promoting and accepting those concepts that seem to validate evolution, no matter how unreasonable they are, while rejecting legitimate Creation science explanations no matter how reasonable they are.

Another example of this bias is seen in the material that deals with marsupials in Australia. Under the heading “Kangaroos in Kayaks,” Ray insists that the idea of the animals on the Ark replenishing the Earth poses “a daunting re-homing project” (101). She notes that getting marsupials and monotremes to Australia is a particular challenge for Creation science, especially non-flying mammals such as kangaroos. As she discusses the creationists’ solutions to these challenges, she mentions the idea presented in Creation science literature of floating log mats on which animals could ride for long distances. She writes that Creation scientists talk about how log mats would have created “little boats on which animals could hitch a ride to far-flung points on the planet” (103). She then condescendingly states: “I’ve seen tongue-in-cheek quips about Noah ‘swinging by’ Australia to drop off kangaroos before heading back to Ararat or setting the kangaroos afloat in a dinghy, but apparently the creationist explanation isn’t far off. In order to make the science fit Genesis, we have kangaroos in kayaks” (103). At this point it would be prudent to point out the fact that ridicule is not refutation. Is there any evidence that large floating log mats (nothing like a kayak) could provide a way for animals to travel long distances over water? Actually, there is. Charles Darwin himself suggested that such might have been the case as it related to certain animals.9 Furthermore, in recent history during a catastrophic tsunami, a dog on floating debris was rescued that was thought to have survived three weeks at sea.10

Contrast the ridicule poured on the log mat idea, which we know is scientifically possible, with how the author buys wholesale the evolution of animals. In a discussion of reptiles and dinosaurs, she writes: “Some large predatory reptiles returned to an ocean life, their limbs modified as flippers to swim and hunt in the water” (114). About supposed whale evolution from land animals, she says:

Over the next ten million years, whales adapted more and more to life in the water. Nostrils moved higher and higher up the snout, creating a blowhole for breathing. The trunk elongated tremendously, and tails acquired the fluke shape seen in modern whales. In some lineages of ancient whales, teeth are reduced, and we find the first evidence of filter-feeding seen in most modern whales (127).

The material is presented like it is proven fact. What is conspicuously missing from the discussion is any legitimate proof of how such massive genetic transformations could have occurred in light of what we see happening today with genetic information. As Dr. Stephen Meyer stated, “the best and most prominent scientists defending evolutionary theory have failed to identify a materialistic process that can generate enough information to produce a new protein fold, let alone fundamentally different new forms of life.”11 Ray suggests that a kangaroo floating on a log mat presents a ridiculous scenario, but the scientifically impossible formation of massive amounts of new genetic information to change a land-living mammal into a filter-feeding whale is no problem at all.

Inaccuracies

Several statements in the book are simply inaccurate. In the discussion of supposed human evolution, Ray states: “All mitochondrial DNA comes from mom” (158). She inserts this statement to show certain supposed relationships between Neanderthals and Denisovans. We have known for several years, however, that “fathers can pass mitochondrial DNA to children in certain cases, not just mothers.”12

On another occasion, when talking about the age of the Earth, the author stated: “In determining the age of the earth and the age of the universe, scientists use multiple, unrelated approaches and methods…. All converge at the same conclusion: the earth and the universe are ancient” (65). This statement simply is not true. There are numerous scientific dating methods that point to a young Earth and Universe.13 Certainly old-age advocates dismiss them, but to state that all dating methods “converge at the same conclusion” does not represent reality.

Additionally, in a critique of the effects of the biblical Flood, Ray scoffingly summarizes the ideas about the effects of a global Flood, stating: “The ocean floor is ripped to shreds. And all of this destruction occurs within forty days and nights, solving the problem of the geologic timeframe” (87). Her assessment that biblical creationists claim that this all “occurs within forty days and nights” is incorrect. While the text says it rained for that long, it also states “the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days” (Genesis 7:24). Furthermore, even after the waters began to subside, there is no way to determine the extent of the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and how long their aftereffects would have lasted. Additionally, residual water build up, mudslides, further flooding, and geologic events such as aftermath volcanic eruptions, etc., that occurred months and years after the actual Flood would most certainly have left their mark in the record of the rocks. I have never read any material from Creation scientists that suggested that all the destruction of the Flood and subsequent crust upheaval occurred within 40 days.14

Damage to the Bible

Just using what we know about verified scientific facts and discoveries, many of Ray’s conclusions about evolution can be shown to be implausible. The most profound and detrimental aspect of her book, however, can be seen in the way she deals with the Bible. Repeatedly, she forces the biblical text to conform—not to legitimate scientific discovery—but modern evolutionary interpretations. This mode of operation does prodigious damage to a reasonable scientific assessment of truth and to a proper understanding of the Bible.

Rejection of Noah’s Flood

In 2 Peter 3, the writer mentions scoffers who would come in the last days denying several aspects of God’s activity throughout human history. First, these scoffers would deny that God spoke the world into existence (3:5). Second, the scoffers would “willfully forget” that “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (3:5-6). He went on to logically connect the present world with the flooded world when he wrote that the “heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (3:7). Peter viewed the Flood to be a global deluge that destroyed all humanity except for those on the Ark. In his first epistle he wrote that the “longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water” (1 Peter 3:20). Furthermore, he understood that the coming of Christ would drastically alter the entire Earth, as the global Flood had done (2 Peter 3:10-13). According to Peter, scoffers deny a global Flood.

For those who hold that the Earth is billions of years old, that all organisms evolved from one single-celled organism, and that all the information contained in the geological record validates evolution, a global Flood is untenable. An ancient Universe and evolutionary worldview cannot reasonably exist in view of a literal, global Flood. Knowing this, Ray writes: “Noah’s flood is central to an anti-evolution narrative” (88). She is correct. A literal understanding that Noah built an Ark, saved eight people on it, and a huge Flood covered the globe cannot be reconciled with evolutionary notions about heredity, vast ages of millions of years, and uniformitarian geology. It truly is anti-evolutionary. And it is exactly what the Bible teaches.15 Just as sure as the rainbow stands as testimony that the entire globe will never be flooded again, so the “world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3:5).

In her attempt to “localize” Noah’s Flood, the author cites evidence for local floods in Mesopotamia that predate the biblical account of the Flood. She states: “Observable flood deposits in the area coincide with these accounts. It is not surprising, then, to find flood stories in the collective memories of ancient cultures in that part of the world, Israel included” (79). Let us consider her reasoning. There was an actual flood (or floods) of some sort in the area. There is physical evidence of such a flood. Legends arose based on that real, historical flood. Thus, such floods would explain why people from that area told stories about a large flood. Following her reasoning to its logical conclusion, if we found legends all over the world of a Flood, and we found physical evidence from around the world of flood activity, what should we conclude? We would be led to the conclusion, based on her assessment of the flood legends of Mesopotamia, that a real, historic Flood occurred. Evolutionary geologist Robert Schoch wrote: “Noah is but one tale in a worldwide collection of at least 500 flood myths…. Narratives of a massive inundation are found all over the world…. Stories of a great deluge are found on every inhabited continent and among a great many different language and culture groups.”16 If Ray is correct that the real flooding that occurred in Mesopotamia accounts for the legends of a flood in that area, what would account for hundreds of legends scattered all over the globe of a “great deluge” from ancient history? Any mention of these flood legends from across the globe is conspicuously absent from Ray’s discussion.

In further comments regarding the supposed “local” flood of Noah, Ray wrote: “Discoveries of flood stories more ancient than Genesis make many Christians uneasy. If your biblical interpretation requires the Noah story to be the original flood story, other ancient stories might be unsettling” (79). Yet, it is confusing why anyone’s “biblical interpretation” would require the Noah story to be the “original.” The fact that the Bible clearly depicts a global Flood says nothing about when the biblical account appears compared to others. It is not difficult to understand that if the Flood occurred in approximately 2400 B.C., and if Moses penned Genesis in about 1450 B.C., then there would be almost 1,000 years between the writing of Moses’ narrative about the Flood and its actual occurrence. It seems only reasonable that immediately following the Flood, those who descended from Noah would tell their children about it and most likely record some of their stories in writing. This fact would help account for the 500 flood legends mentioned above. Of course, the Bible believer would conclude that the Genesis account of the Flood is the only completely accurate description of the events, since it was inspired by the God Who caused the Flood.17 But the incorrect idea that the Genesis account of the Flood must be the only, or the first, account of the events has nothing to do with its accuracy.

The Order of Creation

According to modern evolutionary interpretations, events did not occur in the sequence we read about in Genesis. When the supposed evolutionary ancestor of all living organisms, an unidentified single-celled “creature,” began to branch, the branching looked different than the biblical narrative teaches. For instance, currently we are told that land-living dinosaurs evolved about 220 million years ago and were the ancient ancestors of modern birds. Yet, according to the biblical narrative, flying creatures such as birds were created on the fifth day of Creation, and land-living reptiles were created on the sixth day. Again, modern evolutionary thought insists that flowering plants arrived millions of years after certain kinds of animals, yet the biblical record clearly states that all the plants were created on the third day of Creation, two days before any living creatures arrived (Genesis 1:13-31). Recognizing this fact, Ray wrote: “The creation order in Genesis is in conflict with naturalistic history, and the conflict is insurmountable” (96). Ray’s acceptance of false evolutionary interpretations of scientific evidence forces her to inaccurately reconstruct the historic narrative of Genesis, thereby denying proper rules of interpretation.18

Rejecting Adam and Eve

The biblical account of the Creation of mankind is straightforward and simple enough for a young child to understand. God created Adam from the dust, He created Eve from Adam’s rib, and He told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth (Genesis 1:26-31). We read later in Genesis that Adam “called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living” (3:20). According to evolution, however, Adam and Eve cannot be the parents of the human race. Evolutionary thinking says that humans are latecomers to the scene of life, evolved from lower mammals over millions of years, and were not created by God from the ground or a rib as Genesis states. After a summary of the evolutionary narrative of how humans evolved, Ray stated: “What Adam and Eve cannot be, however, are literal, genetic ancestors of all humanity” (169). Yet, the Bible writers insist that Adam and Eve were the first two humans specially created by God and the progenitors of all humanity. The genealogy of Christ makes no sense if Adam was not literally the “son of God” (Luke 3:38). Paul’s instructions to Timothy are incomprehensible unless Adam truly, literally was formed first and then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13-14). The doctrines of sin and grace hinge on Adam being a real person, who is the father of all humanity, who brought sin into the world (Romans 5:18). Christ’s justifying sacrifice extends to all the humans who stemmed from Adam (Romans 5:17). Paul further hangs the efficacy and importance of the resurrection on the historical validity of Adam when he stated, “The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam [Jesus—KB] became a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45). Jesus provides a way of salvation for just as many humans as Adam is the literal and physical father of.

Would God Deceive Us?

In Ray’s attempt to accumulate evidence against a literal reading of the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood, she declares: “In addition to an intellectual cost, there is also a faith cost. A literal reading of Genesis requires an honest reflection about the nature of God” (182). She then quotes Psalm 19:1-2, and says:

If God’s creation “reveals knowledge,” is that revealed knowledge trustworthy? Is it consistent with God’s nature to fill creation with red herrings? Is it consistent with God’s nature to create a deceptive world, a world not as it appears? Is it consistent with God’s nature to mislead us? When I first began to seriously study what it means to reconcile science and faith, I learned that “God is not human, that he should lie.” The heavens reveal knowledge, and God does not lie (183).

Her point is that if we assume that all things happened in the past as they are happening now, then using certain “dating methods,” we would arrive at millions/billions of years that cannot fit into a literal understanding of Genesis. Based on this assumption, she believes that God would be deceiving us if things “looked” old but in fact were actually younger than they looked. Her accusation is based on the assumption that all things are operating now as they did in the past. God, through the inspired apostle Peter, dealt directly with this assumption in 2 Peter 3:4. As we discussed earlier, Peter explained that scoffers would hold to this uniformitarian idea, but they would intentionally reject the miraculous Creation by God and the miraculous and global nature of the Flood. We can easily understand how a Global Flood would have altered certain physical processes drastically and caused the uniformitarian assumption to be useless in arriving at an age for most (if not all) physical aspects of the Earth.

Consider how a miraculous creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) would also render the uniformitarian dating process useless. On Day 3 of Creation, the text explains to us that God created all the vegetation (flowers, trees, etc.) and “the earth brought forth grass…and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind” (Genesis 1:12). According to Ray, in order for God to be “honest,” every tree and plant must grow at the rate that it is growing now. Thus, if her reasoning is correct, God would never “miraculously” cause a tree to appear full-grown because that would be deceptive. In addition, she would be forced to say that literally creating a sexually mature human male from the ground and breathing into him the breath of life on Day 6 would be deceptive of God, because under normal circumstances, such a man would take years to reach that level of maturity.

Her challenge, however, cannot be sustained, because we know for a fact that God has miraculously created physical realities immediately that, if viewed without the understanding of God’s work, would look like they took a long time to form. For instance, when Christ performed His first miracle in John 2, we see that water was turned to some type of grape juice within a few minutes (or seconds) (John 2:9). Yet, we know that in order to produce grape juice through natural processes, a seed must be planted, a vine must grow for many months, grapes must then form on the vine, and juice must fill those grapes after months of rain and soil nutrients are incorporated into the grapes. Would anyone dare accuse Jesus of deceiving people because He accomplished something instantly that would take months or years to occur naturally? Of course not. In fact, that is the very point being made. Christ (as God) can do supernatural things instantaneously that under normal circumstances would take months or years. Consider also the idea that natural processes require months to produce edible grain and fish. Yet, when Christ multiplied the loaves and fish for thousands of people to eat, He did so in a matter of minutes (John 6:13).

Furthermore, consider the fact that God has told us what He did at Creation. How could a person accuse God of deceiving humanity by making things “look” old, when He explains in Genesis that at Creation the Universe was “old” enough to function immediately. That would mean trees could bear fruit the day they were created; stars could be seen from Earth the day they were created; the dirt in which the plants grew would have nutrients enough to sustain the plants the day it was created; and the list goes on. If God tells you how He did things, but you refuse to accept the way He says He did it, certainly the accusation of deception cannot be sustained as it applies to God. In addition, it is not God’s fault if we assume something that He never stated to be the case. God never said that what we see now is how the world has always been, or always will be. On the contrary, He warned us that such a mindset would be used erroneously by scoffers to deceive people into believing things that would be detrimental to their faith. 

Conclusion

In most cases, it is impossible to know the motivation behind why a person believes and teaches error. Ray makes a statement that does provide some insight into why many people buy into false views of both science and the Bible. She writes: “A literal Genesis means a stand against the vast majority of modern science and scientists” (182). She writes this as though it should be a motivating factor to reject the straightforward reading of the text. In truth, however, isn’t that what any Christian should expect—to stand against the vast majority of the world? Think about it: if the bulk of modern scientists are atheists or agnostics, why would anyone think that they have a correct view on origins and the existence of God? Furthermore, God has warned us that “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Corinthians 1:26). Arguing that we should align ourselves with the majority of modern “thinkers” flies in the face of what we see happening with Paul in Acts 17. He stood on Mars Hill preaching the Gospel to the group that the world recognized as the most erudite body of intellects alive at the time. Their reaction? Almost complete dismissal, except for a tiny minority (Acts 17:32-34).

Do the majority of modern scientists accept the resurrection of Christ? Do they accept the divine inspiration of the Bible? Do they accept the reality of a soul or the eternal destinations of heaven and hell? No, they do not. So, why would we think we need to align ourselves with “the vast majority of modern scientists” when they are so woefully mistaken about many of the most important concepts that comprise the foundation of Christianity? An acceptance and practice of true Christian beliefs and principles will be in the minority in every facet of society. As our Lord clearly warned: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-20). It has often been said that most people would rather be wrong than be different. As Christians, we must embrace the reality that Jesus’ example points us to the narrow way that very few travel (Matthew 7:13).

Endnotes

1 Lee Feuerhelm (2021), Christian Chronicle, October, https://christianchronicle.org/science-vs-scripture-it-doesnt-have-to-be-that-way-biology-prof-writes/.

2 Ibid.

3 Janet Kellogg Ray (2021), Baby Dinosaurs on the Ark? The Bible and Modern Science and the Trouble of Making It All Fit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 30-31. Throughout the review, page numbers in parenthesis without footnotes refer to pages from Ray’s book.

4 Near the end of the book, Ray states: “Please don’t confuse science with the ideas of scientism or materialism” (p. 184). By stating that she believes in God, and that science cannot answer all questions, she attempts to separate her view of science from pure naturalism. It is apparent throughout the book, however, that she does not believe that any “science” evidence can ever point to a supernatural Creator, and that all “science” agrees only with evolutionary and naturalistic processes.

5 At Apologetics Press we have answered this challenge thoroughly in “The Catch-22 of Peer-Reviewed Journals,” https://apologeticspress.org/the-catch-22-of-peer-reviewed-journals-2508/ and Jeff Miller (2020), “Creationists Aren’t Scientists. They Don’t Get Published,” Reason & Revelation, 40[6]:70-71, https://apologeticspress.org/creationists-arent-scientists-they-dont-get-published-5830/.

6 Biologos is an organization that teaches that Darwinian evolution is true and any understanding of the Bible must be interpreted to allow for it.

7 See Eric Lyons’ article “Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans,” https://apologeticspress.org/historical-support-for-the-coexistence-of-dinosaurs-and-humans-part-ii-1247/.

8 Michael Houts, “Assumptions and the Age of the Earth,” https://apologeticspress.org/assumptions-and-the-age-of-the-earth-5126/.

9 Bob Novella (2014), “Charles Darwin Was Wrong and Now He’s Right…At Least Regarding Biogeography,” https://legacy.theskepticsguide.org/charles-darwin-was-wrong-and-now-hes-right-at-least-regarding-biogeography.

10 Alan Taylor (2011), “Japan Earthquake: One Month Later,” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/04/japan-earthquake-one-month-later/100041/.

11 Stephen C. Meyer (2021), The Return of the God Hypothesis (New York, NY: Harper Collins), p. 324.

12 Anna Asvolinski (2018), “Fathers Can Pass Mitochondrial DNA to Children,” The Scientist, https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/fathers-can-pass-mitochondrial-dna-to-children-65165.

13 Jeff Miller (2019), “21 Reasons to Believe the Earth Is Young,” Reason & Revelation, 39[1]:2-5,8-11, https://apologeticspress.org/21-reasons-to-believe-the-earth-is-young-5641/.

14 For a discussion of the geological implications of the biblical Flood, see Andrew Snelling (2009), Earth’s Catastrophic Past (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research), Vols. 1&2.

15 Jeff Miller (2019), “Was the Flood Global? Testimony from Scripture and Science,” Reason & Revelation, 39[4]:38-41,44-47, https://apologeticspress.org/was-the-flood-global-testimony-from-scripture-and-science-5671/.

16 As quoted in Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt, “Legends of the Flood,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/legends-of-the-flood-64/.

17 Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible From God? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

18 Dave Miller, “Genesis: Myth or History?”, Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/genesis-myth-or-history-5793/.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.