1
Journal Article Review of “Why is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins
Controversy ”?
CF
Dr. Eric Tangumonkem
PHSC 210-A02, Elements of Earth Science
November 17, 2022
2
Introduction
The massive mudflows and waves during the Mount St. Helen’s eruption on May 18,
1980 forced geologists to question their thinking about the possibility of a world-wide flood.
This article discusses the questions that the initial eruption evoked, discusses results of the
eruption, and concludes with an admonition to readers. Dr. Austin’s article will continue to sway
reader’s opinions on the possibility of the Genesis flood.
Article strengths
The article’s three main strengths are its sources, its examples, and its tone. The first
strength of the article is its sources. By not only quoting Creation scientists in his article but also
citing authors from different fields of thought, Dr. Austin opens doors to reach people with other
opinions. Dr. Austin’s bibliography includes articles from sources such as Journal of
Geophysical Research Geology 8 Geological Society of America Bulletin Hydrological , , 96, and
Sciences Journal 34. Many of the authors from these sources improve their position by holding
doctorate degrees in their fields. Dr. Austin’s use of multiple sources strengthens his article
because people will be more willing to read an article by someone who does not only include
sources from one side of the debate.
Second, a strength of the article is its examples. Dr. Austin provides multiple, clear points
that defend his Creationist view and that are convincing to readers. Before providing evidence,
the article asks, “How would mudflows and giant water waves modify the earth? Does the earth
change piecemeal by slow and gradual processes, which accumulate small changes over
immense periods of time? Do canyons in hard rock bear evidence of catastrophic erosion? Have
the Yellowstone ‘petrified forests’ and coal deposits accumulated by catastrophic sedimentary
processes?” and “Was there a global flood on the earth?” (Austin, 2014). After asking these
3
questions, Dr. Austin answers them by providing evidence of the rapid formation of stratification,
rapid erosion, rapid formation of fossil deposits, and rapid formation of peat layer. In the section
of the article that addresses rapid formation of stratification, Dr. Austin includes an image the
shows deposits that are merely ten months apart. This picture allows readers to not only read
about evidence, but also to be able to see the evidence. By showing multiple examples of the
effects of catastrophic geologic events, Dr. Austin strengthens his article.
Last, the best strength of the article is its tone. In a world that is so easily offended, Dr.
Austin presents his article in a respectful, informative manner. Dr. Austin’s many examples
demonstrate his informative approach, but his respectful tone is also evident in a variety of ways.
Dr. Austin shows respect by simply presenting evidence instead of arguing a point. The article
never attempts to jab at people of different opinions. A prime example of Dr. Austin’s respect is
found in his conclusion. Here, Dr. Austin states that “many scientists recognize that Darwin’s
theory may be in error” (Austin, 2014). Dr. Austin does not present this fact in a harsh,
authoritative way, but rather by informing his readers of some scientist’s change of mind.
Creditable sources, a variety of examples, and a respectful tone all strengthen the article.
Article Weaknesses
Although the article does not include any assumptions, factual errors, or logic errors, Dr.
Austin does weaken his article by using the common fallacy of faulty generalizations. Dr. Austin
uses faulty generalizations by stereotyping evolutionists. Although evolutionists typically believe
that geological processes happen slowly, evolutionists differ on the exact timetable of events.
Although quite minor compared to the multiple strengths of the article, this faulty generalization
still weakens the article.
4
Conclusion
I would rate “Why is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy ” as a five ?
because the strengths of the article far outweigh the weaknesses of the article. Dr. Austin’s article
discusses the questions that the initial Mount St. Helens eruption evoked, discusses results of the
eruption, and concludes with an admonition to readers while clearly outlining evidence observed
during the Mount St. Helens eruption that scientists may apply to their study of the Genesis
flood. Christians should continue to study the world because of the command in John 1:3. “All
things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (King James
Version, 1769/2017, John 1:3). By following Dr. Austin’s example in this article, Christians may
continue to present evidence that supports Creationists’ views, and they will also be able to lead
people to the Creator.
5
References
Austin, S.A. (2014). “Why Is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?” The
News Answers Book 3. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-
helens/why-is-mount-st-helens-important-to-the-origins-controversy/.
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/
(Original work published 1769).
