This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Mount St Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe

by Lance Wilson
March 15, 2006

See Also

• Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe

Summary:  Epic Idiot gives an interesting but what I believe to be a less insightful review of a 1990 ICR video by Dr Steve Austin on his theories that the eruption of Mount St Helens and “evidence” for a “young” earth.  I would like to offer the following as my own review of Austin’s DVD.

The Video

From Portland, OR, Mount St Helens at 50 miles away, dominated the northern skyline of the city.  Standing at 9,766 feet, St Helens permanent snowfield and near perfect symmetrical cone, the mountain seemed like a large bowl of vanilla ice cream through the eyes of my childhood, especially on hot summer days.  Yet, on May 18, 1980, my favorite bowl of ice cream had transformed into a ragging monster that forever changed everything around the mountain and spark my lifelong love of geology and volcanology (full discloser, my day job involves environmental protection and occupational safety and health).

I was not the only to become inspired by the eruption.  2,000 miles to the south of Mount St Helens at the “hallowed” halls of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in San Diego and at other YEC organizations across the nation, YECers saw the eruption as the tool that they needed to make their attacks on evolution and an associated model called the laws of uniformity sound creditable.  All that was needed was to send a couple of YEC believers with PhDs to spend a few days inside the blast zone to give the YEC stamp of approval and suddenly the eruption of Mount St Helens is now a weapon to attack the very science that makes our knowledge of the mountain meaningful.

Dr. Steve Austin, a newly minted PhD graduate from Pennsylvania State University, who had somehow managed to get his dissertation on coal formed by a floating log mat in Kentucky passed the PhD board at Penn State, became the ICR representative to Mount St Helens.

In 1993, ICR released a video tape lecture that was given by Austin called Mount St Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe, where Austin explains his hypothesis on how the eruption of Mount St Helens is a watershed event that will ultimately result in the demise of evolution and uniformitarian geology.  The themes he discusses in this video will become modified and improved in later work that was performed by Austin, including a book that he partially wrote and edited called Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (1994, ICR), and most recently in another book on the St Helens eruption that was co-written by Austin and ICR President John Morris called Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St Helens (2003, Master Books).

The 1993 ICR video presentation is now actually very dated and those interested with understanding the YEC claims on Mount St Helens, should read Footprints in the Ash.

A watershed event . . .

In any war, the first casualty will be the truth.  This is precisely what I see in the epic debate over evolution versus creationism as well, except the first real victim in this struggle is science itself.

An opening theme that is introduced by Austin in MSHEEC is his vision that the 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens marks a “watershed event” that will bring about the ultimate demise of evolution and its associated evil, uniformtarianism.  This vision was repeated again in his 2003 book called Footprints in the Ash.

What does Austin mean by that?

There are many watershed moments in our shared history, where an extraordinary event causes a whole scale change to the people and the nation.  These events are significant because those who were around at the moment which the event occurred can tell you what they were doing at the time and how that event changed them personally.

The attack on Pearl Harbor is one such watershed moment.  The assignation of President John F Kennedy is another.  The most recent example of a watershed moment affecting everyone was that dark day when terrorists managed to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center.  These are true watershed moments.

Was the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens a watershed moment though?

For me, the eruption was.  To this day, I can recall what I was doing (sitting in a bus seat) and where I was at (in Victoria, BC on a high school marching band trip) when I first learned about the eruption of Mount St Helens (the Vice Principal scrambled onto the bus and turned on the radio) and what I did next (worried that my home city of Portland, OR was being buried by volcanic ash, we raced back to our motel and called home – Portland was not touch by the ash and surprisingly, very few people in Portland were actually aware what was going on 50 miles to the north).

My story is rather mundane when compared to others.  For example, to the people living along the Toutle River the eruption marked a watershed moment for them as well, because hundreds had to quickly evacuate their homes to avoid being swept away by the torrential mudflows that rampaged off the mountain.  Then there are the hundreds of thousands of people who live in Yakima, Richland and Spokane, who suddenly witnessed their bright sunny day turned pitch black by the large volcanic ash cloud that swept over them.

The eruption was watershed moment in another way.

As a boy of 13 years old, I was able to spend a week at Camp Spirit Lake, which was one of four youth camps that operated on the feet of Mount St Helens since the early 1900’s.  There were no roads that serviced the camps and a recreational lodge called Harmony Falls Lodge on the north end of Spirit Lake.  The only way to reach the camps was to hike.  The gear we brought was transported by boat.  To this day, I can recall just how pristine the ancient forest was that surrounded the lake, the roaring sounds that came from Harmony Falls and the shock of cold that sweep over my body as I first dove into Spirit Lake for the mandatory swim test that we had to take.

Now, the landscape that surrounded the mountain and the mountain itself has changed utterly and for all time.  Years later, in 1983, the Forest Service finally opened up a portion of the newly formed Mount St Helens National Volcanic Monument.  It was my first opportunity to visit the mountain since my youth and after the 1980 eruption.  Most of the evidence of the destructive power demonstrated by Mount St Helens still had not been completely washed away by time yet.  All of the bridges that crossed rivers and creeks were still US Army temporary bridges.  Many of the trees along the river shoreline still bore the marks of the mudflows that rampaged through the area.  And the trees blown down by the lateral blast were still pronounced.

Yet, it was not until I got to see Spirit Lake from Windy Ridge (on the east side of the volcano) and the gapping mouth that once was a mountain before the significance of May 18, 1980 finally sank in.  Spirit Lake, was now riding higher then she had before the eruption.  Harmony Falls Lodge, the Boy Scout Camp of my youth, even the Harry Truman’s St Helens Lodge were either blown away by the lateral blast or, buried by the landslide.  What stood before me now was an alien landscape, like God had decided to wipe the slate clean and start afresh.

For me, Mount St Helens was a watershed moment because through the destruction I wanted to learn more about the forces that was behind the hammer.  That is why geology and volcanology became a lifelong love.

Somehow though, when Dr Austin declares on MSHEEC that the eruption of Mount St Helens is a watershed moment of the 20^th Century, I do not believe he was referring to the eruption sparking my love for geology.

To understand what Austin is referencing when he believes the eruption marks a watershed moment, we need to set aside science.  Austin may appear to behaving like a scientist and he may appear to be challenging some of the fundamental principles of science, but what Austin is really referencing is the war on ideology.

It took awhile for me to truly understand this.  Like most people who were raised in the church and who benefited from having parents who were also scientists (both my Mom and Dad were microbiologists), I never saw a conflict between having a healthy relationship with God and accepting the fundamental principles of evolution and an old age earth.  Then again, I do not live in a world of absolutes.

Austin and millions of people like him do live in a world of absolutes.  Austin subscribes to a branch of Christianity that views scripture in absolute terms.  Scripture is not only viewed as a guidebook for how one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but for scripture to be really true, scripture must also be the cookbook on how the heavens were made.  Therefore, for the promise of Christ’s second coming to be true, it is necessary that we view the Genesis 1:1-11 (The Creation Story) and Genesis 6-8 (the flood account) to be equally true.  The struggle then is one over dogma and ideology, they only use to language of science as a messenger.  It is an epic battle between good versus evil.  Austin and people like him who subscribe to a fundamentalist view of Christianity, see anyone who oppose them as the embodiment of evil.  Even for Christians such as myself, who find no conflict between my faith and with science, I am considered to be evil in the mindset of fundamentalists because I am willing to “compromise” with scripture.

Dogma can be unyielding and without compromise.  Just as Austin’s belief in scripture is dogmatic and unyielding, so too is their opponents.  For Christian fundamentalists, they draw on an absolutists view of scripture as their guide, therefore the science that informs the other side must equally be viewed in dogmatic terms.

The great bogyman YECers believe they absolutely must conquer is what they call as uniformtarianism.  Originated by Sir James Hutton in 1790 and promulgated by Sir Charles Lyell in his great three volume treatise called the Principles of Geology, the laws of uniformity represent the great evil dogma that gave rise to another evil called Evolution.  And it is evolution that fundamentalist blame for the secularization of society, the rise of moral wrongs and the decline of America itself.

For those of us who do not live in a world of absolutes, we often find the language used by fundamentalist like Austin almost laughable.  The law of uniformity declares simply that “the present is the key to the past.”  It is a principle that declares that the physical laws of nature (physics, chemistry and biology) are constant through time.  Therefore, by understand how processes affect nature in the present, we can also recognize how nature worked in the same way in the distant past.  The law of uniformity is a commonsense way for how one does science.

The real difficulty for those of use who do not live in a world of absolute, is how YECers like Austin present uniformity to the general public.  Science is – for lack of a better word – is an evolving process.  Through experiments after experiments, some scientific models become improved and others are abandoned.  Nothing is really static in science.  Even the laws of nature can get a jolt now and then.  This includes the ultimate rejection of a portion of Lyell’s laws of uniformity.

Lyell – as brilliant as he was – did not get uniformity entirely correct.  He and ultimately Hutton were men blinded by the part of the world which they lived in.  Through careful observation, they knew that erosion performed a vital roll to affect change.  They knew that the igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks that sat on top hills and mountains were slowly being weathered away.  Applying Steno’s laws of superposition, they knew that the broken pieces of these rocks were being carried away by river and streams, to be deposited in estuaries and sea beds.  In time, those fine grain particles will become cemented into a new rock formation.  In England and in much of Europe, these forces of erosion were slow and methodical processes.  Lyell was aware that sometimes nature issues out a jolt, a catastrophic event that causes a rapid and sudden change, but Lyell placed greater emphasis on a process called gradualism, the recognition that changes can occur only slowly through time.

Gradualism was replaced almost a century ago, by a doctrine known as actualism and even then it took much of the first half of the twentieth century to cast the flaws of gradualism into the dust bin of history, a fact that YECers love to continue to remind us on.  Actualism though recognizes the planet is much more complex than an either-or solution.  Sometimes changes occur slowly through time and sometimes changes occur rapidly.  It took several million of years for the Grand Tetons in Wyoming to be sculpted into the wonderful pinnacles that they are, but Mount St Helens can change her appearance in matter of minutes. Actualism embraces both processes though.

The debate between creation and evolution though is not that simple.  Remember science is not the issue.  If it were, YECers would have taken their marbles home a long time ago.  The debate instead is ideological.

Gradualism and Evolution

In Mount St Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe, after Austin entreats us to a somewhat accurate description of the events leading to the May 18, 1980 eruption and provides a description of the main event itself, Austin clues us into his true target, namely Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.

When Darwin set sail on the HMS Beagle, he carried with him, a complete copy of Lyell’s three part treatise on the Principles of Geology, including the great heresy of uniformtarianism (i.e., gradualism).  Darwin certainly had ample time to read his copies of Lyell and absorb their meanings, while the Beagle plotted its course to the Galapagos Islands and destiny.  Before the Beagle reached the Galapagos, she made a stop in Argentina, where Darwin had an opportunity to apply Lyell’s principals at the Santa Cruz River.  As Austin tells the story, if it wasn’t for Lyell’s heresy, Darwin would not have formulated his ultimate theory on evolution.  Austin goes on to suggest that Darwin was wrong with his description of the Santa Cruz Canyon and River as it flows from the high mountainous slopes of the Patagonia’s of Chile (without providing a great amount of detail of why he thought Darwin was wrong), and if Darwin was wrong with his descriptions of Santa Cruz, was he not also wrong when he formulated his theory of evolution?

Austin set out a straw man argument.  A straw man argument is a form of debate where the presenter creates an easily beatable argument, associates that argument to their opponent and then defeats that argument.  We see straw mans most often during election seasons when one side or the other broadcasts a negative campaign advertisement.  Like the Swift Boat ads that torpedoed the Kerry Campaign in 2004, or Democratic ads during the 1990’s that morphed Republican candidates into an off characterization of Newt Gingrich, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Straw mans are not true, but they are effective.  And, the use of straw mans by YECers is the most common debate tool they will use to attack evolution.  Since the debate over creation and evolution is really an ideological one, it is not surprising that Austin would resort to a political campaign tactic.

In the creation-evolution debate, we are not debating over science and religion as it is viewed today, we are instead reliving the battles that once dominated the first half of the nineteenth century.  The battle was over the Huttonians who believe that the planet was changed slowly through time, against people like George Curvier and William Buckland, who called themselves as catastrophists, who believed that the planet changed through a series of catastrophic events.  In the end, the Huttonians won that debate.

Modern YECers see themselves as the new catastrophists and they want to reinvigorate the old debate.   It is interesting that in their image of catastrophism (one creation week and one global flood); they would reject Curvier and Buckland version of catastrophism as easily as they reject evolution, but that little detail is insignificant.  The real enemy is Lyell’s uniformtarianism and the heresy he planted to lead Darwin into formulating his theory of evolution and the debate the YECers bring forward is to present Lyell and Darwin as it was understood during the nineteenth century.  In short, the struggle is over ghosts, by people who wish to change the clocks of time and this time, it will be the catastrophist who would have won the argument.

Personally, I think the entire mindset of YECers is just sad, perhaps even pathetic.

Mount St Helens and Catastrophes

Once the terms of the debate is understood, it becomes easier to see how Austin applies the lessons from the eruption of Mount St Helens in his lecture video, Mount St Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe to support his views.  In each of his observations, including the rapid deposition of volcanic ash, the rapid erosion of Step and Loowit Canyons, the phreatic steam explosion pits near Spirit Lake and the floating log mat on Spirit Lake, Austin is making a case against the dogmatic definition of uniformtarianism of the nineteenth century.  He does not really present a true scientific argument on how each of these catastrophic examples can support the layering and formation of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, the development of the Badlands of South Dakota and the Petrified Forest of Yellowstone National Park, but that is not his mission either.

The mission is not to prove creationism, but instead defeat uniformtarianism.  In Austin’s 2003 book on the eruption (Footprints in the Ash) the evolution-creation debate is presented as an either-or choice.  There was either slow and gradual change (the nineteenth century definition of gradualism) or there is catastrophism (the twentieth century definition).  There is no in between (reality).  In each example offered by Austin, the rapid deposition of volcanic sediments, the easy erosion of Loowit and Step Canyons and the deposition of trees at Spirit Lake, Austin remind the audience that geologists are suppose to believe that change comes slowly.  Yet each example Austin informs the audience, is in reality an example of catastrophic change (which they are).  I suppose when the debate are coxed in those terms and if I did not know anything about geologic processes, I could see how the eruption of Mount St Helens through mud into the faces of geologists.  With no other alternatives made available, catastrophism (creationism) is presented to win by default.

Some closing thoughts

On the one hand, I find Austin’s portrayal of the eruption to be disingenuous, dishonest and I will go a step further by suggesting that Austin is lying in the name of Christ.  And it is really too bad that my favorite mountain in my backyard is being manipulated in a propaganda campaign that has nothing to do with science.

Austin for example spends a great deal of time during his video lecture with observations that he made on the deposition of some trees in Spirit Lake and how they can present an explanation for the deposition of petrified trees in Yellowstone.  In truth, if you research the papers that were generated by YECers on Spirit Lake and the deposition of the Petrified Forest, the credit really belongs to Harold G Coffin, a YEC geologist with Loma Linda University and the Geosciences Research Institute.  At the end of the lecture, Austin does list Coffin as one of the assistance helping with his presentation, but in truth it is Austin who is listed by Coffin as a research assistant during his research studies of the logs embedded at Spirit Lake in 1983 and 1987.

Who assisted who?  I believe this is a case where Austin is taking credit for somebody else’s work.  Just how much creditability can someone place into a guy who is willing to present work that is not their own?  In my book, I cannot find any creditability in such a person.  It has the same smell as cheating on a test or plagiarizing a school paper.

Congress in 1982 had the foresight of preserving a portion of Mount St Helens as a national volcanic monument.  I would have preferred that the boundaries of the new national monument would have been larger because in the short 26 years after the eruption, the serenity of the area is once again under threat by a mining company who wants to open up a copper mine, only one mile outside the monument boundary and at the most picturesque section of monument which is near Meta Lake on the northeast side.

The Forest Service, who administers Mount St Helens National Volcanic Monument, has constructed three visitor centers on SR 504, the main highway leading to the blast zone of Mount St Helens.  Each of these visitor centers are dedicated to teaching the next generation about the truly wonderful story of Mount St Helens and her recovery.  The visitor centers even invite exploration into the fascinating sciences of volcanology and ecology, which Mount St Helens has proven herself to be a fascinating laboratory.

On the other hand, I must keep in mind that the portrayal of Mount St Helens in the larger struggle between creation and evolution is really an ideological struggle, where science is still not involved.

Recently I was watching a presentation over the internet by the Rev. George Coyne who is the director of the Vatican Observatory.  The presentation was given on February 19, 2006 at the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the purpose of the presentation was to discuss how to fight back against attempts to substitute creationism in classes teaching biological evolution.  Father Coyne was correct when he stated in his presentation that evangelicals are not going away and we simply need to deal with them.

I for one would not criticize someone who made the choice to view Christ in absolutist terms.  They have that right and I will not say they are wrong either.  I do not agree with the underpinning theology, because I do believe the Bible is a guidebook and not a cookbook.  If God was a true scientist as the implications of the debate suggest, why did he make lead and mercury extremely toxic to biological life?

However, you fight fire with fire.  This website does show some promise, or else I would not have offered my views.  There are many more websites such as Panda Thumb and Talk Origins which provides good materials to combat the more extreme element of the YEC movement.  We need to be positive about what we do.  We need to declare that it is okay to accept God and the wonderful findings of science like evolution and deep time.

Photo copyright Lance Wilson 2006

I feel blessed because I got to witness the July and August 1980 eruptions of Mount St Helens.  I certainly did not anticipate that I will be blessed to watch the mountain come to life again in 2004. The scars left by the eruption were certainly terrible to witnesses, but as the years past by I am witnessing a forest being reborn.  One of my favorite pictures that I took of Mount St Helens last year during one of my many hikes is a photograph of a yearling Douglas fir tree with Mount St Helens and slowly growing new lava dome in the background.  The tree had taken root on top of a hummock, which are the remnants of the 1980 landslide.  This photograph represents that change is constant and someday, even Mount St Helens will be restored to her former glory.

Lance Wilson at Mt. St. Helens - Photo copyright Lance Wilson 2006

Viewer Feedback

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic