Published: June 17, 2007 11:27 am      

Writer's Block— Creationism best explains Bone Cave

Editor’s note: Writers Block features essays written by area college and high school students.

This week Writers Block belongs to Garrett Humbertson, a senior at Calvary Christian Academy. The son of Gary and Lisa Humbertson, Garrett is co-editor of the yearbook, a member of the journalism team, class president and statistician for the varsity boys basketball team. He plans to attend college and major in journalism and political science.

Little has been made of the Cumberland Bone Cave lately, but the controversy surrounding it is ongoing and very significant. I was surprised to discover that the trail behind my back yard, the Allegheny Highlands Trail, runs beside the cave. Excited about the find, I researched its history.

The cave was discovered in 1910 when the Western Maryland Railway blasted through a small mountain. A local amateur naturalist witnessing the excavation noticed several large bones and alerted a paleontologist at the United States National Museum in Washington, D.C. Sizable collections were carried to the museum until the work was halted in 1916. The cave remained untouched for another three decades until Brother G. Nicholas, a science teacher at LaSalle High School, used his students to help him uncover more fossils. Nicholas discovered the original entrance on the north side of the tracks. This is positioned 30 feet above the tracks where Nicholas found most of his fossils.

The cave appears to have been descending at about a 45-degree angle. Nicholas and evolutionists believe that animals fell into this hole, and waters from a hypothetical, nearby stream deposited silt and clay at the former mouth of the cave. This explanation is unacceptable.

Most of the fossils found are from rodents which would have been able to climb out of the hole. Many rodents can ascend even a completely vertical hole. Even the saber-toothed tiger found there could have escaped. It is very unlikely that an animal the size of a mastodon — like the one found at the site — would have been wandering aimlessly in such steep, rocky terrain.

Furthermore, even if the animals were that unintelligent, evolutionists cannot adequately explain why the bones did not degenerate. Bacteria usually decays the bone, not fossilize it. The rodents trapped there would have consumed the bones to stay alive as they normally do. The only explanation is that these rodents must have been already dead when they entered the cave.

Then there is the question of how some animal species ended up in the cave in the first place. How did things like grizzly bears and crocodiles get there? These animals are not native to Cumberland. What about the African eland? Did it happen to swim across the Atlantic Ocean, only to fall into a hole in some mountain? What of the sea creatures reportedly found fossilized in rock near the bone cave? That rock is nearly 1,000 feet above sea level, and perhaps 300 or more above local creeks and rivers. With the local drainage, a localized flood scenario is unthinkable.

Benjamin Cooper, a local soil expert, theorizes that a flood was responsible for this site and backs up his view with true science. His explanation is that animal life was killed by the biblical worldwide flood, and the bodies began to decay as they floated on the water’s surface. The pressure of the water then ate away at the limestone around the bone cave, and the waters were able to drain into the hole that was thus formed.

Scientifically, the heaviest things would settle first, meaning the animal carcasses, and then any sand or silt. Finally, the clay would settle last and close up the cave, sealing off all air needed for decay processes. This makes more sense than the evolutionary explanation of mindless animals falling in a hole.

The Cumberland Bone Cave theory remains an argument that could strengthen the creationists’ viewpoint. Many Christians misjudge just how important this topic is. Evolutionism is based on the belief that there is no God, therefore man can do whatever he pleases. This philosophy is destructive to mankind as a whole. Clearly this type of thinking has resulted in a less moral and more dangerous world. It’s hard to say if evolutionism has benefited society in any way whatsoever.

The Evolutionary Theory cannot be viewed as science. True science must be capable of being observed, demonstrated and repeated. Evolution has never been all of these under any circumstances. It’s weak both logically and scientifically. One thing’s for sure. I wouldn’t stake my soul on it.