mount st helens as a model for the grand canyon? somehow i don’t think so

By Alison Campbell 12/11/2010

Recently our local paper ran an article on Mt St Helens, which hit the headlines with a violent eruption back in 1980. The words ‘big bang’ were mentioned in the title. This seems to have struck a chord with one reader…

This mountain’s big bang, and the subsequent rapid remodelling of the area, ironically casts doubt on “the big bang”, which we have been taught is what brought about our own origin over supposedly billions of years.

I quote the writer: “One of the largest landslides in recorded history ensued.”

Yet this event was just a small reminder of how the Earth’s present surface was formed – by a rapid and catastrophic event. Mount St Helen’s eruption created a small version of the Grand Canyon in just a few hours. Therefore, significantly, what we see around us is not evidence for a slow and gradual evolution. An interesting book which discusses parallels to the Grand Canyon and Mount St Helens is available in the Hamilton Llibrary. It’s called “Footprints in the Ash”, by John Morris and Steven Austin. You owe yourself a look at it.

(At the beginning of the third paragraph I was thinking, Young Earth Creationism, or YEC, and mention of John Morris & Steve Austin confirmed it.)

Although by no means the largest eruption in recent history, Mt St Helens was the largest for a considerable period of time in North America. It released around 24 megatons of thermal energy & its lateral blast produced a path of destruction that reached around 27km from the mountain. And it did result in ‘the largest landslide in recorded history’ when a debris-laden lahar travelling at up to 240kph rushed down the mountainside, filling the Touttle river valley with up to 180m of rock, gravel and ash. (There’s a good source of images here on the US Geological Service website.) After the eruption the ash and mud fields surrounding the remants of Mt St Helens’ cone were carved and eroded by rainfall to produce features like this:


Image source: Lance Wilson’s blog Mt St Helens Watch

This is ‘Step Canyon’. Steve Austin has called this ‘Little Grand Canyon’ although the formation hardly merits the name as it’s about 20m deep compared to the 1.5km of the real Grand Canyon 🙂 Leading into it is ‘Engineers Canyon’, which Wilson notes was formed rapidly by engineers pumping water out of a lahar-dammed lake further upstream. Austin, Morris & other creationists claim that because these two formations were produced so rapidly by erosive forces, this ‘proves’ that the Grand Canyon itself formed extremely fast & thus supports the idea of a young Earth (6,000 years or so old) with its geological features formed by the Noachian flood.

Unfortunately for this idea the authors aren’t comparing like with like. The debris fields around Mt St Helens are made up of rocks & gravels, ash & mud, & the remains of pyroclastic flows, sitting loosely atop each other – they’re not compacted or consolidated. All this is sitting on steep slopes, pretty much unprotected by any plant cover (particularly immediately after the eruption sequence), and in an area where the average annual rainfall is about 3m for year – a recipe for some pretty impressive erosion. The Grand Canyon is different.

This significant geological feature cuts through layers of limestone, sandstone, shale and metamorphic granite, a mile down to the Colorado River, arranged as shown in the following image from the TalkOrigins website

 Idealized and simplified diagram of the Grand Canyon – from TalkOrigins
Grand Canyon figure

These rocks are much more resistant to erosion than the unconsolidated debris fields of Mt St Helens, and their rates of erosion are much too slow to allow for the Canyon’s formation in the very short timespan of the YEC model. On the basis of radiometic dating those recent (Cenozoic) lava flows at the very top are around 1.3 million years old – because they flow over the lip of the Canyon they must have been laid down after it formed. Uranium-lead isotope measurements suggest that the Canyon is at least 6 million years old and was cut at rates of between 55 and 400 metres per million years

So we really are looking at a ‘slow and gradual’ event, and indeed, it was Lyell’s and Hutton’s documented evidence of slow, gradual changes in the Earth’s surface (subsequently validated by radiometric dating) that gave Darwin the time needed for the evolution of life to occur.

0 Responses to “mount st helens as a model for the grand canyon? somehow i don’t think so”

  • I’m impressed that the Noachian flood was able to drown some 30,000 trilobite species- apparently very early on given their presence in the geological column. Apparently water breathing animals adapted to low oxygen environments are far more vulnerable to drowning than, oh, terrestrial animals. And modern crustacea.

    And of course, the flood was still so gentle that it didn’t wash away the ichonfossils left by the trilobites.

  • I love the Idealized and Simplified graphic from talk origins. And I’m thinking, Uniformitarians. Surely you can’t post an idealized and simplified cross-sectional geological diagram on a science blog?
    Unless your blog is idealized and simplified…..
    Idealized…, it’s mind-boggling. I can imagine your EOY performance interview Alison: “Yes minister. All our outcomes are fully idealized and simplified.”

    Come on: to criticize scientific data based on the world-view of the scientist is similar to Adolf refusing to pursue ‘Jewish Science’, which of course led to Princeton getting Einstein et al. Again will you similarly ban John Hartnet PhD of Australia, creator of the most accurate clock in the world, because he believes in a young earth?

  • I am assuming – on the basis of your comments here & elsewhere on this site – that you adhere to young-earth creationist explanations for biological diversity & also for Earth’s origins?

  • And incidentally – where is your evidence that the structure of the Grand Canyon is not as shown in that diagram?

    Your last paragraph is evidence of a ‘Godwin’ – attempting to use reference to Hitler to settle an argument.