The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

LATER HISTORY OF THE FLOATING MAT MODEL The history of the floating mat model resumes at the start of the Twentieth Century with unfortunate turn of opinion. The controversy concerning the origin of coal had been skillfully summarized by Cambridge geologist Newell Arber (1912). He outlined all the controversial topics, then wrote: “…each seam of coal must be examined, studied, and judged entirely on its merits.” The new generation, however, did not follow his advice. This was the time when uniformitarian doctrine was making its transition to become geologic orthodoxy. It was not just a debate about fossil roots and sedimentary process. The paradigm system within all of science was being negotiated, likely behind closed doors, with critical decisions being made. Geologists recognized “blank checks” with nearly unlimited funding in the geologic time account. Catastrophist models didn’t use much time, and were being superseded. As a result, allochthonous theory of coal formation was being challenged, marginalized, or even deliberately suppressed. The floating mat model was ignored. Several developments likely assisted the uniformitarian reform movement. We speculate here on these causes. This was a time of significant change with increasing controversy in politics, religion and science. Peoplewere not inclined to critical discussion or debate about the two-hundred-year-old esoteric topic of environments of coal deposition (distractions not needed, as prime concerns are world wars, technology, mechanization, eugenics, women’s rights, Marxism and Darwinism). Specialization in sciences also served as distractions. Coal petrology proved extremely useful and saw its application in coal technology and metallurgy. Paleobotany was distracted from global critical discussion by discovery of coal balls which refocused Carboniferous research to details of phylogeny and plant anatomy. Then, with World War 1, petroleum and natural gas became the fuels of choice. Almost all the coal geologists at U.S. Bureau of Mines were hired by new oil companies. The smartest people left to do other things! In 1913 the federal government became involved in the Carboniferous coal debate with the publication of U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 38 “The Origin of Coal” (White and Thiessen, 1913). David White, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, was the paleobotanist and Reinhardt Thiessen was the coal petrologist. The impact of Bulletin 38 was enormous. On the controversial questions, White and Thiessen offered their own interpretation of the origin of coal within the overall framework of emerging uniformitarian orthodoxy, without alternate models. It was shrewd use of opinion and government position to defuse debate. However, concerning Stigmaria , it was not an opinion – it certainly was a soil rooting organ of terrestrial trees. White introduced and dismissed the floating mat controversy with a single opinion sentence: “In none of the important and widely extended coal beds examined by the writer has he observed any lenses or intercalated bodies of coal that may be interpreted as masses, floating islands, or rafts of vegetation somewhat abruptly submerged, in accordance with the hypothesis proposed by numerous writers” (White and Thiessen 1913, pp. 63, 64). The names of the “numerous writers” are not mentioned so that the history can be ignored. White and Thiessen’s opinions about what they have not seen changed to certainty in later retelling of the story: “White and Thiessen studied the origin of coal; their book on coal (published in 1913) disproved the allochthonous origin of coal, the popular theory of the time.” (Lyons and Morey 2006, p. 55). White and Thiessen didn’t disprove allochthony, they simply ignored it. American geologist John Stevenson (1913) extensively reviewed the history of autochthonous versus allochthonous coal, putting a decidedly autochthonous spin when reviewing the story. Stevenson’s spin is seen in how he deals with A.C. Seward (1895a,b), his contemporary and peer at Cambridge University, who also published a historical review of allochthony and autochthony. Stevenson’s 530-pages ignores that prominent work of Seward, but recognizes Seward in one sentence about a trivial matter of plant anatomy. Stevenson’s summary is another opinion statement: “…to this writer, it appears certain that the path marked by allochthony ends in a cul-de-sac , walled with contradictions; and that farther investigation along that path will be fruitless….” (Stevenson, 1913, p. 486). Today, over one hundred years later, we can ask questions about Stevenson’s two opinions. Is it certain that allochthony ended a hundred years ago in a cul-de-sac walled by contradictions? Did allochthony as a scientific explanation continued to remain fruitless? Statements of opinion, not careful comparison of models, became the enterprise of the new science. Old opinion (allochthony) was superseded uncritically and deliberately by the new opinion (autochthony). Then, within a few years, opinions were no longer stated as opinions. They were stated as facts while a new generation of geologists was in training. That is how Carboniferous coal became widely associated with the autochthonous model in the Twentieth Century. The new consensus attributed upright tree fossils within strata to be standing forests that grew in situ , not remnants of floating mats deposited after transport. Stigmaria , in the new consensus, became in situ roots that penetrated terrestrial soils. Therefore, by close paleobotanical association, coal became a terrestrial deposit, not a subaqueous sediment. Notice the deliberate steps of the newmethodology: paleobotany-stratigraphy- petrology-environment. However, throughout the Twentieth Century, many paleobotanists and geologists understood coal to have formed from subaqueous plant detritus. In quick response to uncritical acceptance of autochthonist opinions (e.g., White and Thiessen 1913, Stevenson 1913), the Harvard plant physiologist E. C. Jeffrey (1915) and his graduate student Carl Forsaith (1917) documented the detrital textures of allochthonous modern peat in Florida and similar texture petrographically in Carboniferous coal. Jeffrey (1924, 1927), Francis (1961), Coffin (1969) and Cohen (1970) were noteworthy in critical reevaluation as autochthonous evidences were being overstated. These allochthonists directed attention to flaws in the autochthonous model. Their work was largely ignored by autochthonists. Throughout this period no developed statement of the floating mat model appeared. As graduate student in the coal petrology program at Pennsylvania State University, Steven Austin (1979) submitted a Ph.D. dissertation on the Paradise (Western Kentucky No. 12) Coal Bed. At the top of the coal bed Austin described petrographically nine lithotypes. Next, through a stratigraphic study of the nine Austin and Sanders ◀ Historical survey of floating mat model ▶ 2018 ICC 282