preston.s.cook@gmail.com

Thanks for your comment, Dennis. You are not alone in believing that a universal flood was the source of the geologic record we see today. In fact, flood geology was the dominant narrative in scientific communities for hundreds of years. Early geologists were very attached to flood geology because it fit their religious worldview. When a few scientists started to bring up evidence that suggested the flood geology model was fundamentally flawed, there was immense resistance. For some of them, the cognitive dissonance was so intense that they began to believe that God could not exist if flood geology was wrong. They proposed that scientific research be guided by the Bible.

My point is that over a hundred years ago these scientists were convinced by flood geology, just like you are today Dennis. They were just as uncomfortable with modern geology as you are today. But in the light of overwhelming evidence, the scientific community shifted away from flood geology even though they had to undergo an uncomfortable paradigm shift to get there. Dennis, have you considered reading how modern geology came to win over the vast majority of flood geologists over 100 years ago?

Also, the marginalization of flood geology didn’t lead to the death of religion. I went to school at BYU, where they teach modern geology. My peers were able to balance their faith with modern geology. I’ll bet there is a religious professor of geology at SUU who would be thrilled to sit down with you and address your concerns. Have you considered hearing what a modern geologist has to say regarding flood geology?

UM team, this is exactly what I’m worried about. By neglecting your responsibility to go through the peer-review process yourselves, you pass that responsibility on to your audience. How many of them are going to take the time to peer-review your science, and look for critical opinions? What you’ve done is immoral and irresponsible.

Respectfully, I think you’ve approached publication the wrong way. You’re not alone. Darwin’s theory of evolution wasn’t submitted to peer review either. I think Darwin approached it the wrong way as well. Let me explain.

UM, Charles Darwin, and probably thousands of others bypass the process of peer-review, and in so doing take up a huge responsibility. Your audience will read UM, some will reject it, others will embrace it. UM is especially appealing to those who would like to find a way to reconcile science and Biblical religion. No doubt many of your acolytes will come from the ranks of the faithful looking for answers. These people have real questions, and their souls ache for answers, and at first glance UM appears to have them, so they will embrace it. That all sounds great, right? Imagine for a moment that UM is wrong. All of the UM adherents will have to come to terms with the fact that their worldview is wrong. If they make the mistake of conflating spirituality with UM, then the paradigm shift won’t be limited to their rational selves, it will transcend into spirituality as well.

People’s lives will really be affected by what UM is teaching. People’s lives were directly affected by what Darwin taught. Some people’s lives were probably destroyed by what Darwin taught. UM mentions that there was a scientific dark age because erroneous principles have been perpetuated. Peer review is how you prevent a scientific dark age. The fact that Darwin published the Origin of Species before gaining approval of the scientific community show that he didn’t understand the gravity of his responsibility.

I’m all for challenging established science, but it should not be done irresponsibly. The theory of evolution wouldn’t have been any less revolutionary had Darwin convinced the scientific community before going public. UM wouldn’t be any less revolutionary if you had convinced the scientific world before going public. Unfortunately, your cat is out of the bag. It’s too late to take the responsible choice.

That being said, you could still pull the website down. Stop selling your books to the public. Submit it to peer-reviewed journals before spreading it any further. I just became aware of UM today, but I am already aware of serious issues that need revision. I would be happy to help review UM free of charge.