Chapter Two: What About Continental Drift?

I’m not going to quote this one as extensively as Chapter One. For one thing, it’s inconclusive. For another, the authors engage in a lot of dry, pseudo-scientific jargon in order to sound impressive. The chapter begins by pointing out that the now-commonly-accepted theory of continental drift was unpopular and controversial “just a few decades ago.” This change in the general opinion of experts is not framed as “people found more evidence, which caused them to realize what was actually going on;” instead, the authors appear to be of the opinion that science ought to be static and unchanging over the years, or it isn’t reliable.

This is, of course, bunkum. Science is not a list of facts; it is a process of finding the truth through experimentation. A flawed test, or a faulty assumption, can result in incorrect conclusions. As more evidence comes in, these bad conclusions are challenged and eventually fall by the wayside, replaced by more accurate ones. This constant change and peer review is, in fact, why science is more reliable than a slavish adherence to centuries-old ideas. For example, people used to believe in the four-humors theory because they had limited information about how bodies and illness work. As scientists learned more through study, it became clear, not only that there are more than just four fluids inside the human body, but that they do not influence personality in the way that was once believed. So four-humors theory is no longer accepted or taught as fact. Science is about becoming more correct and closer to the truth bit by bit, study by study. As such, scientific knowledge is not, and cannot be, set in stone forever.

The authors begin this chapter by describing the generally-accepted theory of how the continents got to their current positions: At one point, the continents were one landmass called Pangaea, which broke up due to the movements of tectonic plates over millions of years, until they reached their current positions. (No mention of the fact that the continents were in other positions before Pangaea, of course.) In doing so, the authors constantly put the word plates in scare quotes, as if they do not believe that continental plates exist. This was already a bold move in 1990. In 2025, it feels outright ludicrous. We know that tectonic plates and fault lines exist. We have observed them! The San Andreas Fault, and the movement of two plates against each other at that fault line, is known to be the cause of California’s many earthquakes, and has been for decades.

Their first complaint is that the continental shorelines, in their present form, do not all fit together neatly like puzzle pieces. Never mind that sea levels have risen and fallen multiple times over the lifetime of the earth. Never mind that the continental shelves might fit together better. Never mind that the existence of mountain ranges indicates that the continents weren’t always their current shape! No, you can’t fit together the current continental shorelines perfectly like pieces of a puzzle without leaving bits out, therefore the whole thing must be foolishness. (Forgive my sarcasm.)

The second complaint is about reversals of the earth’s magnetic field not lining up properly on either side of oceanic trenches. I’ll admit, this is not a subject I’ve studied much, but it really feels like they’re trying to obfuscate actual scientific disagreement—and the nature of their sources—with big words and dry language. More about magnetic field reversals in a moment.

The third complaint is that there is no viable mechanism for the continental plates to drift in the first place. The authors do correctly state that the general consensus is that convection currents in the earth’s mantle move the bits of crust above them like a giant conveyor belt. They don’t believe that this is actually possible though, because the mantle is apparently too viscous. What about the friction that would result, they cry, ignoring the fact that convection currents in the mantle can and have been observed by scientific instruments. Obviously the amount of friction can’t be enough to prevent convection in the earth’s mantle if such convection is known to happen!

The fourth complaint is about measurements of drift in modern times. The authors insist both that the amount of change (a few centimeters per year) is not statistically significant, and that that level of accuracy isn’t possible on such a large scale. Why anybody would lie about tiny amounts of drift, when it would be more impressive to make up a larger number, is beyond me, but according to young-earth creationists, there are no depths of dishonesty to which scientists will not sink.

Then comes the Biblical discussion. Because of course there is a Biblical discussion; this is Answers in Genesis we’re talking about. Suddenly, it is possible that Noah’s Flood cracked the earth’s crust into tectonic plates—the same tectonic plates that have been in scare quotes for the whole chapter! As for continental drift, why, Genesis mentions a man named Peleg, during whose lifetime “the earth was divided.” Let’s pause for a moment to realize how laughably ridiculous it is for the earth’s plates to have drifted into place in a mere human lifetime. Not only would everyone on earth have noticed, and many lives been lost by the sheer speed of that movement, but the friction with both the atmosphere and the earth’s mantle would have been far more extreme than what the authors were just complaining about earlier in the chapter. It’s also argued that a lot of tectonic movement could have happened during Noah’s flood (which, bear in mind, is supposed to have taken less than a year from the first drops of rain to the ark landing on a high mountain), including multiple reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. All in half a year. Uh-huh.

I don’t think that the authors are aware that many animals can detect the earth’s magnetic field, and that the rapid reversals suggested would have caused mayhem among quite a few species. Either that, or they’re assuming that being confined in tiny little pens on an ark would somehow have kept them calm, instead of inspiring panic itself. But we’re going to discuss the flood in more depth in another chapter, so let’s just move on to the authors’ conclusions.

The authors reach two conclusions: 1. that just because the continents may have drifted in the past doesn’t mean that they are still drifting (why?) and 2. that because the Bible doesn’t say outright whether or not continental drift happened, we can’t actually be sure if it did. Again, just because something is not in the Bible, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen. The internal combustion engine, for example, is never once alluded to in the ancient library of religious texts known as the Bible, yet millions of these engines have been built over the last 200 years, and millions of them are still in today’s cars as I write this. The lack of curiosity evident here is almost beyond belief, but that’s what fundamentalism does; it kills curiosity, because knowledge makes the whole house of cards come tumbling down.