What do you think?
Rate this book
Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens
In the early morning hours of May 18, 1980, the pristine scenery around Washington's Mount St. Helens was shattered by a powerful explosion that devastated its north slope. The eruption of a landmark mountain had begun. In the aftermath, amid the rivers of mud, blankets of ash, and eerie quiet, scientists made a startling “nature” was bringing life out of death, re-claiming from the destruction a teeming colony of plant and animal life. Most amazing of all, the geological upheavals had re-created the processes of old that had carved out such marvels as the Grand Canyon. Today, the site stands as a testament to the power of God, who upholds all of creation. In His infinite wisdom, He has shown the modern science of geology that the earth is much, much younger than many suspected.
Hardcover
First published September 1, 2003
1 person is currently reading
51 people want to read
About the author
John D. Morris
38 books6 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author with this name in the Goodreads database.
John D. Morris was an American young earth creationist and the son of the "father of creation science", Henry M. Morris. He received a Doctorate in Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahoma in 1980 and briefly served on the university's faculty. In 1984, he joined the Institute for Creation Research (ICR); after his father's death in 1990, John Morris became the president of ICR.
John D. Morris was an American young earth creationist and the son of the "father of creation science", Henry M. Morris. He received a Doctorate in Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahoma in 1980 and briefly served on the university's faculty. In 1984, he joined the Institute for Creation Research (ICR); after his father's death in 1990, John Morris became the president of ICR.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 20, 2018
A sufficient overview of the implications of Mt St. Helens. Certain facts and ideas were repeated way too much — almost as if they didn’t have enough material, even for a picture book. While the overall layout of the book is pretty good, with striking pictures, the basic quality of the book felt a little... off. Like it was self-published. Worth a casual read but not worth buying.
January 10, 2013
Oh, where to start.
This is an egregiously awful attempt to prove the entire scientific world is wrong about everything that disagrees with the Bible. Evidence is presented dishonestly and the only references in the entire book are specific bible verses and photography credits. There's nothing remotely scientific about the approach taken here, it is sloppy thinking applied to geology and chemistry with the goal of somehow reconciling science and the Bible.
Which brings us to the first egregious lie: the idea that science and scientists are out to get believers or the bible or God. The assertion is made several times that it is scientific findings about the age of the earth that are the cause of people turning atheist and falling away from religion. Not only do they present any evidence for this, it is highly arguable. Perhaps it has happened to few, but there are many, many christians who find a way to reconcile being a scientist with their religious beliefs. In fact, many of the scientists I know personally who work for the government, universities, etc. do just that! They are able to do it because they understand that the fields of religion and science are not at war. They are entirely separate endeavors and segments of the human experience. Religion is based on faith in things that can never be proven. Science is about making sense of the world using only logic and evidence. By the nature of BOTH, one cannot be used to "disprove" one or the other. Which means scientists who try to use scientific evidence to disprove an unknowable are just as foolish as creationists who use the bible to try and "correct" science (bonus point: At the very end of the book they admonish scientists to adopt "correct thinking." Scientists already have an authority figure to defer to in matters of "correctness." His name is math.). So the book from the start seems like the work of paranoid lunatics, out to defend themselves from a vicious scientific community . . . that largely doesn't know they exist, because these guys never publish anything in scientific journals. In truth, while I also know scientists who are hostile to the idea of religion for their own personal reasons, it doesn't affect their science. Science is purely about the scientific method, and proving that which can be proven. scientists, scientific institutions and scientific research CAN be affected by politics and standard human drama (as it is practiced by humans), but it has a strong distaste for dishonesty and agenda-setting. In fact, those things are taboo. By agenda-setting, I mean assuming any theories must be true before you've even started collecting evidence. So when these authors proceed from the get-go that anything that disagrees with the bible must be false, they've already left the field of science, which is why scientists don't respect them. You can't manipulate facts to fit a pre-determined conclusion and call it science. That's not what science is. Which makes this whole book a dishonest exercise from the beginning.
Their second egregious lie is the assertion that geologists reject the notion of catastrophic causes of geological features. Geologists understand the world was both long-term and catastrophic short-term processes and do not argue that. The assertion made in this book that geologists only believe in long-term processes for geologic formation is dishonest and false.
The third egregious lie is that water cutting through unsettled ash and debris is exactly the same as water cutting through limestone. They basically argue that a small canyon cut by rapid water and mudflows near St. Helens means that the Grand Canyon must have (or at least could have) been cut by a world-wide flood. They go on to say that the layers in the grand canyon are all the type that can be created by water or a fast mudflow, neglecting to mention (or perhaps unaware, as they are not good scientists, or indeed, scientists at all) that there are rock layers mixed in that could only have been formed by dry, and desert-like conditions which kind of negates their whole argument. Essentially that shows that the layers they claim were formed rapidly MUST have stopped for a few centuries to build a sandy layer, then resumed the flooding (because the layers above the sandy layers must have been formed by catastrophe as well).
The fourth egregious lie, is that they have any evidence against radioactive argon dating. They took one sample, which was a mixture of all different types of rocks, sent it to one lab, and got results that were all over the map in terms of age. They claim that this casts this type of rock dating into doubt. What is really casts doubt on is the quality of their methodology. The explanation is complicated, but argon dating does not work for very young samples, and Mt. St. Helens debris is obviously very young, certainly too young to have created any measurable amount of argon to use for the dating technique. Furthermore, it's highly likely that there were older bits in with the sample that were in fact formed much earlier, and simply expelled by the volcano. Third, they don't even seem to consider argon contamination in the lab they had the test at. Which is why actual scientists tend to take more than one sample, and test it more than one time. So they sent one sample of old and new rock (in other words: a bad sample) to one lab, got confusing results and claim this casts doubt on the entire dating method! I am not convinced.
The end of the book is a particularly heavy handed attempt at proselytizing. First, and unforgivably, they use the example of Harry Truman (the 80-year old man who refused to leave his home at spirt lake and subsequently died in the eruption) as an example of the type of person that deserves to die. Because, you see, God has given us warnings and if we don't listen we deserve to die as much as Harry did. Harry made his choice, but the lack of compassion and respect for the dead is staggering. I think Harry was unwise as well, but it seems somewhat classless to use him as a effigy for sinners everywhere. He's even pictured and it's just now occurred to me that it's with a beer in hand as if to say "what a sinner!" Sad. Their spiel, with multiple logical fallacies, attacks on modern culture as demanding God's immediate judgement, ends with an appeal for everyone to adopt "correct thinking" , i.e. don't think in ways that could possibly contradict the bible ever. And that goes double for you devil-worshipping scientists!
Worst of all, this is the most spineless, passive-aggressive "argument" for anything I've ever read. Constant references are made to "some geologists" or "some say" without specific reverence or evidence that ANYONE is saying the things they claim they're saying. Furthermore, they end a lot of their half-assed arguments with phrases like "We just don't know if we can trust scientists anymore." rather than, you know, compiling specific evidence and publishing it it in a peer-reviewed journal where scientists could agree or disagree. They're preaching to the choir, while acting like brave truth-tellers (there is not much that is too brave about preaching to the choir). The sad part of it all is, if they had compelling evidence for a young earth, scientists would love it! Especially if other scientists could repeat the experiment and get the same results and come to the same conclusions. Scientists are totally willing to entertain notions that run contrary to current thinking on any topic! It's how science grows! Scientists get famous by finding compelling evidence that contradicts previous thinking on any topic! The catch is, you have to have compelling evidence, and these guys don't have it.
On the plus side, the pictures in this book are VERY nice.
This is an egregiously awful attempt to prove the entire scientific world is wrong about everything that disagrees with the Bible. Evidence is presented dishonestly and the only references in the entire book are specific bible verses and photography credits. There's nothing remotely scientific about the approach taken here, it is sloppy thinking applied to geology and chemistry with the goal of somehow reconciling science and the Bible.
Which brings us to the first egregious lie: the idea that science and scientists are out to get believers or the bible or God. The assertion is made several times that it is scientific findings about the age of the earth that are the cause of people turning atheist and falling away from religion. Not only do they present any evidence for this, it is highly arguable. Perhaps it has happened to few, but there are many, many christians who find a way to reconcile being a scientist with their religious beliefs. In fact, many of the scientists I know personally who work for the government, universities, etc. do just that! They are able to do it because they understand that the fields of religion and science are not at war. They are entirely separate endeavors and segments of the human experience. Religion is based on faith in things that can never be proven. Science is about making sense of the world using only logic and evidence. By the nature of BOTH, one cannot be used to "disprove" one or the other. Which means scientists who try to use scientific evidence to disprove an unknowable are just as foolish as creationists who use the bible to try and "correct" science (bonus point: At the very end of the book they admonish scientists to adopt "correct thinking." Scientists already have an authority figure to defer to in matters of "correctness." His name is math.). So the book from the start seems like the work of paranoid lunatics, out to defend themselves from a vicious scientific community . . . that largely doesn't know they exist, because these guys never publish anything in scientific journals. In truth, while I also know scientists who are hostile to the idea of religion for their own personal reasons, it doesn't affect their science. Science is purely about the scientific method, and proving that which can be proven. scientists, scientific institutions and scientific research CAN be affected by politics and standard human drama (as it is practiced by humans), but it has a strong distaste for dishonesty and agenda-setting. In fact, those things are taboo. By agenda-setting, I mean assuming any theories must be true before you've even started collecting evidence. So when these authors proceed from the get-go that anything that disagrees with the bible must be false, they've already left the field of science, which is why scientists don't respect them. You can't manipulate facts to fit a pre-determined conclusion and call it science. That's not what science is. Which makes this whole book a dishonest exercise from the beginning.
Their second egregious lie is the assertion that geologists reject the notion of catastrophic causes of geological features. Geologists understand the world was both long-term and catastrophic short-term processes and do not argue that. The assertion made in this book that geologists only believe in long-term processes for geologic formation is dishonest and false.
The third egregious lie is that water cutting through unsettled ash and debris is exactly the same as water cutting through limestone. They basically argue that a small canyon cut by rapid water and mudflows near St. Helens means that the Grand Canyon must have (or at least could have) been cut by a world-wide flood. They go on to say that the layers in the grand canyon are all the type that can be created by water or a fast mudflow, neglecting to mention (or perhaps unaware, as they are not good scientists, or indeed, scientists at all) that there are rock layers mixed in that could only have been formed by dry, and desert-like conditions which kind of negates their whole argument. Essentially that shows that the layers they claim were formed rapidly MUST have stopped for a few centuries to build a sandy layer, then resumed the flooding (because the layers above the sandy layers must have been formed by catastrophe as well).
The fourth egregious lie, is that they have any evidence against radioactive argon dating. They took one sample, which was a mixture of all different types of rocks, sent it to one lab, and got results that were all over the map in terms of age. They claim that this casts this type of rock dating into doubt. What is really casts doubt on is the quality of their methodology. The explanation is complicated, but argon dating does not work for very young samples, and Mt. St. Helens debris is obviously very young, certainly too young to have created any measurable amount of argon to use for the dating technique. Furthermore, it's highly likely that there were older bits in with the sample that were in fact formed much earlier, and simply expelled by the volcano. Third, they don't even seem to consider argon contamination in the lab they had the test at. Which is why actual scientists tend to take more than one sample, and test it more than one time. So they sent one sample of old and new rock (in other words: a bad sample) to one lab, got confusing results and claim this casts doubt on the entire dating method! I am not convinced.
The end of the book is a particularly heavy handed attempt at proselytizing. First, and unforgivably, they use the example of Harry Truman (the 80-year old man who refused to leave his home at spirt lake and subsequently died in the eruption) as an example of the type of person that deserves to die. Because, you see, God has given us warnings and if we don't listen we deserve to die as much as Harry did. Harry made his choice, but the lack of compassion and respect for the dead is staggering. I think Harry was unwise as well, but it seems somewhat classless to use him as a effigy for sinners everywhere. He's even pictured and it's just now occurred to me that it's with a beer in hand as if to say "what a sinner!" Sad. Their spiel, with multiple logical fallacies, attacks on modern culture as demanding God's immediate judgement, ends with an appeal for everyone to adopt "correct thinking" , i.e. don't think in ways that could possibly contradict the bible ever. And that goes double for you devil-worshipping scientists!
Worst of all, this is the most spineless, passive-aggressive "argument" for anything I've ever read. Constant references are made to "some geologists" or "some say" without specific reverence or evidence that ANYONE is saying the things they claim they're saying. Furthermore, they end a lot of their half-assed arguments with phrases like "We just don't know if we can trust scientists anymore." rather than, you know, compiling specific evidence and publishing it it in a peer-reviewed journal where scientists could agree or disagree. They're preaching to the choir, while acting like brave truth-tellers (there is not much that is too brave about preaching to the choir). The sad part of it all is, if they had compelling evidence for a young earth, scientists would love it! Especially if other scientists could repeat the experiment and get the same results and come to the same conclusions. Scientists are totally willing to entertain notions that run contrary to current thinking on any topic! It's how science grows! Scientists get famous by finding compelling evidence that contradicts previous thinking on any topic! The catch is, you have to have compelling evidence, and these guys don't have it.
On the plus side, the pictures in this book are VERY nice.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 7, 2019
This book talks about how observations of events during and after the explosion of Mount St. Helens impact our understanding of how quickly various geological formations are created. The book had many photographs of the destruction and of the geological formations that were created in the aftermath. The author started by detailing the events of the eruption, like the start of the mud flow or the various catastrophic events that happened at Spirit Lake.
The author then moved on to the observations taken by the scientists at that time and in the years afterwards. He talked about how a certain sedimentation pattern or whatever would be explained if seen in places like the Grand Canyon, but we now know how quickly they form because we saw them form in a matter of hours or sometimes days.
He talked about rapid strata formation, rapid hardening of sediments into rock, rock deformation, the damage caused by flowing water and mud slurry, radioisotope dating on the new lava dome, rapid erosion of canyons into solid rock, rapid formation of Badlands topography, comparing it to the Grand Canyon, the rapid formation of peat and coal beds, the rapid formation of shoreline features, the rapid fossilization of trees and about petrified wood, and how quickly plants and animals returned to the ash areas. Overall, I'd recommend this very interesting book.
The author then moved on to the observations taken by the scientists at that time and in the years afterwards. He talked about how a certain sedimentation pattern or whatever would be explained if seen in places like the Grand Canyon, but we now know how quickly they form because we saw them form in a matter of hours or sometimes days.
He talked about rapid strata formation, rapid hardening of sediments into rock, rock deformation, the damage caused by flowing water and mud slurry, radioisotope dating on the new lava dome, rapid erosion of canyons into solid rock, rapid formation of Badlands topography, comparing it to the Grand Canyon, the rapid formation of peat and coal beds, the rapid formation of shoreline features, the rapid fossilization of trees and about petrified wood, and how quickly plants and animals returned to the ash areas. Overall, I'd recommend this very interesting book.
June 8, 2022
A beautifully photographed and fascinating book by John Morris and Steven Austin that we enjoyed using in our homeschool.
Scientists learned a lot from Mt. St. Helens. They learned that gorges and canyons form quickly over a matter of hours to days. They learned that peat bogs form in months.
In essence, they learned that big destruction causes big changes.
They brought some Old Earth Scientists to the newly formed canyons and bogs and asked them when they were created. The OE Scientists took out their tools and determined these fascinating geological places were formed millions of years ago. When they were told they were recently and quickly formed by Mt. St. Helens, and they saw the evidence, they were silenced.
Scientists learned a lot from Mt. St. Helens. They learned that gorges and canyons form quickly over a matter of hours to days. They learned that peat bogs form in months.
In essence, they learned that big destruction causes big changes.
They brought some Old Earth Scientists to the newly formed canyons and bogs and asked them when they were created. The OE Scientists took out their tools and determined these fascinating geological places were formed millions of years ago. When they were told they were recently and quickly formed by Mt. St. Helens, and they saw the evidence, they were silenced.
March 13, 2019
The evidence of geological processes, as demonstrated during the aftermath of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, supports God's Word when it claims that God created all things in the not-too-distant past. Good proofs for disputing scientific claims of dating.
December 9, 2019
Interesting exploration of the geologic effects of the eruption of Mount St Helens. Creationist interpretations are put upon the effects, but the conclusions drawn about time frames for geologic changes under extreme circumstances are enlightening.
November 19, 2021
3.5 rounded to 4-stars
This was a pretty interesting book. Some of the information is repetitive and some aspects could have been explained a little better, but overall, it was good.
This was a pretty interesting book. Some of the information is repetitive and some aspects could have been explained a little better, but overall, it was good.
June 12, 2023
Well written giving proof of a young Earth and that the Bible is accurate.
November 1, 2023
The book had some wonderful new information that had been learned from the Mt. Saint Helens' volcanic eruption.
What I didn't like much was that the very last part got pretty evangelical.
What I didn't like much was that the very last part got pretty evangelical.
November 4, 2016
Gives evidence for a young Universe.
Several statistics were repeated way too often. Good overall, but it would have benefited from an editor sorting through the repetition.
Several statistics were repeated way too often. Good overall, but it would have benefited from an editor sorting through the repetition.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews