Walt Brown – hardly ignorant

Walt Brown
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Walt Brown believes in creation, and a planet-wide flood. Is he “ignorant,” as some say? Or does the physical evidence favor him?

Walt Brown the soldier

Walt Brown

Walt Brown, PhD, Colonel, USAF (Retired) Photo: self, used by permission

Walter T. Brown, Jr. was born in 1937, the eldest of three children. His family were Methodists, and he heard the Bible all his life. He came by his personal faith gradually, after hearing people outside his family preach the Gospel to him.

He actually lived through a minor miracle in his adolescence. He had a congenital heart valve defect that limited his physical activity greatly. His prognosis was grim—for not more than thirty-six years of life. Yet he would often “push” himself to more activity than might have been wise, just to see whether he could do it. And then, at the age of 17, the miracle happened. The telltale “murmur” that his family doctor had always noted, vanished completely. Walt could now be as active as he wished.

He entered West Point in 1955. After graduating, he trained as a paratrooper and an Army Ranger. He married his wife of 51 years, Peggy Hill, in 1960.

After he finished his Ranger training, the Army sent him to New Mexico State University for a master’s degree in mechanical engineering. When he graduated, the Army sent him to the White Sands Missile Range as a testing officer. There he solved a crippling program with the Army’s Littlejohn missile system. That feat earned him an early promotion to the rank of Major. Then he persuaded the Army to let him apply for a National Science Fellowship to study engineering at the doctoral level. He cleared the Fellowship exam easily and earned his PhD in mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the record time of two years and three months.

From there Major Walt Brown went to Vietnam as a Division Material Officer. There he devised a new method of cleaning a rifle to stop it from jamming, and invented a simple tunnel-detection technique. After a one-year tour, he left Vietnam and went to the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. From there he did a stint as director of the Benet Laboratory near Albany, NY, and then won an assignment to the US Air Force Academy as an exchange instructor. Within one year, the Academy superintendent helped him get a permanent transfer to the Air Force so that he could stay on at the Academy as a tenured professor. Within three years, he went to the Air War College, first as a student, then as a guest lecturer, and finally (1976) as a full-time professor.

But in 1980, Walt Brown realized that he had another calling: to tell the truth about how the world came to be. So he retired from the Air Force in that year, as a full colonel.

From evolution to creation

Walt Brown grew up a Christian, and he and his wife had always had a strong faith. But neither of them would question the prevailing doctrine of evolution until 1970. Before then, they accepted evolution, with God playing the role of a Patient, Painstaking Designer and Builder. This “theistic evolution” would not satisfy them forever.

In 1970, Brown first heard a discussion on the radio about Noah’s Ark, and the first expeditions to search for it on Mount Ararat (Cudi Dagh) in Turkey. The idea that any floating object could settle at an elevation of 17,000 feet flabbergasted him. He couldn’t accept that at face value—but he didn’t dismiss it out-of-hand either. He contacted an “Ark hunter” and discussed the idea several times with him.

That was the start of an investigation, not only of the Ark legend, but of all the scientific evidence that he thought supported evolution. Within two years he realized that the evidence did not support evolution at all. Among other things, he found that sea-life fossils are present at the summits of every major mountain chain that paleontologists have searched. And what’s more, geologists have known this all the time.

That was when he realized, in his study of the Bible, that Jesus Christ talked about Noah, the architect and captain of the Ark, as a real person. From then on, he accepted the Bible, including the first eleven chapters of Genesis, as true and accurate.

His wife needed more convincing. So he asked her one night, “Why do we need a Savior?” The problem: if evolution were true, then death was a part of life before humans ever existed. From then on, no one in the Brown family would try again to reconcile the irreconcilable.

The problem with science teaching

Walt Brown “believes in science” readily enough. The problem is that most teaching in origins science is unscientific. Those who teach evolution, tell their students what to think, not how.

Walt Brown found another problem when he went to Arizona State University to study geology. Geologists can describe what they see on earth, and in rich detail. But they do not adequately explain what they see. Most geology courses do not discuss how certain formations came to be.

Walt Brown has the advantage, with his engineering background. He can look at a formation of the earth and ask himself, “How did this happen?” And he can apply that insight on a global scale.

The Hydroplate Theory

These insights allowed Walt Brown to invent and develop his Hydroplate Theory of the global flood. It is the most comprehensive theory of that event that anyone has ever devised. It holds that the earth once had a sub-crustal ocean. On the day of the Flood, the crust cracked open at the present Mid-Atlantic Ridge, releasing the waters from their confinement. The waters eroded the two sides of the crack for 800 miles and shoved them apart, thereby creating the basin of the Atlantic Ocean. On the other side of the earth, the crust caved in and formed the deep basin of the Pacific Ocean—and the Ring of Fire. The mountains formed when the crustal plates, after moving rapidly apart, crashed onto the old sub-crustal chamber floor and literally wrinkled. And the waters of that ocean sloshed over the earth and deposited the entire “fossil column” all in one year.

In 1981, Walt Brown challenged Dr. Robert S. Dietz, the developer of the plate tectonic theory, to a written debate with no religious references allowed. Strangely, Dr. Dietz balked at that very condition. Walt Brown has kept his offer open, to Dr. Dietz and to any other PhD holder brave enough to accept the challenge.


Mulfinger G and Mulfinger-Orozco J. Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World. Ambassador Emerald International, 2001. Quoted in Brown W, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation.<http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia.html>


Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

15 Responses to Walt Brown – hardly ignorant

  1. The way you describe Brown’s theory makes it sound implausible. Reading elsewhere I gather that Brown is a proponent of a young earth. The real world exists, and in that real world there are rocks far older than Brown’s theory can conceivably account for. Moreover the geologic column makes perfectly good sense on a naturalistic and uniformitarian interpretation of geology. No need to include fantastic and implausible fairy tales.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      That’s not true, when you consider other facts of engineering that no one gave the slightest thought to, until he did: what happens when you subject quartz, a piezoelectric substance, to a magnitude-13 earthquake. You get the voltages that you normally see inside a reactor used to make transuranic elements. Maybe you can figure out what that means.

    • Donald R Laster Jr says:

      If you look the way geologist try to date rocks you find they often use a circular logic basing age upon the existence of fossils and other factors. The Classic A yield B thus C and therefore A.

      Mount St Helens show some of this fallacy. The eruptions created standing layers of trees above other standing layers of trees. Geologists have used these type of structures to “date” rocks and other structures. Yet Mount St Helens created the same structures in a day. Volcanic eruptions have often undermined geologist aging methods by creating the very type of structures that if left to normal growth and flooding would in fact take thousands of year. But a volcano creates in a day.

      Always remember – real science is self-correcting. Just consider the “man-made global warming” claims. A single volcano puts more CO2 into the air than we have ever done. You may find this document interesting reading http://dlaster.com/DOCUMENTS/Global_Warming_Scam_distribute.pdf and remember, the Man-made climate advocates were caught fabricating data. In the 1970s the crisis was global cooling.

      It is important to distinguish between real pollution which we can address and fake issues which are only used to control and dictate to us. This is what most of the pseudo-environmentalist are about – control. A little off-topic but it does to be basic discussion.

  2. Geno says:

    Terry has taken to blocking my comments for no apparent reason, but I’ll try again….

    No one is accusing Dr. Brown of being ignorant or stupid. However, even the best and brightest among us sometimes overlook the obvious. For example, in the early days of space flight, NASA spent over $1 million (10x that in today’s money) to develop a pen that would write in zero gravity. The solution? ? ? A pencil.

    Dr. Brown (and Terry) take the position that the written debate must be a comprehensive examination of Brown’s entire model. According to Terry, this is “for a perfectly logical reason: one cannot consider any one part of his work apart from the rest. We deal here with a unified theory of the Flood.”

    Let me ask the question as a hypothetical…..
    Hypothetically, if a consequence of a “unified theory of the Flood” is the sterilization of the planet, is it a useful or valid explanation?

    I ask this because I decline to argue against Brown’s entire model “for a perfectly logical reason.” That reason is that IF Brown’s model destroys all life on the planet, nothing else about it matters.

    • Geno says:

      I had commented Terry is blocking my posts for no apparent reason. This was an error on my part. Terry had contacted me at the email address I use for this blog and advised me he was delaying my comments and why.

      I apologize for any confusion which was entirely my responsibility.

  3. Loretta says:

    There is another, far more plausible theory about the creation flood that is closely supported by archaeology:

  4. […] Walt Brown – hardly ignorant […]

  5. ffliteking says:

    Glad to see Walt is still working hard on his theory, have read MANY books on evolution and Creation, Walt’s Book was by far the most convincing and plausible.

  6. gonetogalt says:

    I’m pleased to find a site that has any discussion, however sporadic, discussing Dr. Browns theory. I logged on hoping to stimulate some discussion on a thought that occurred to me yesterday, and which I’ll pose a little further down.

    First a real world example of the usefulness of understanding the true history of earth. About 40 years ago I was working towards a BS in exploration geology, my life goal was a career in mining as an entrepreneur. To augment my meager funds, I decided to hunt meteorites in the Grand Canyon, it seemed to me that millions of years of slowly depositing snow white limestones and sandstones should show iron oxide stains around any meteorites entrapped in the strata, and easy to detect visually, and given the many square miles of vertical exposure in the canyon walls, success seemed guaranteed. However, a few days of camping, hiking and prospecting yielded no meteorites, none.
    Then, 20 years later, I read Dr. Browns book, and understood, finally, why there are no meteorites in what should be a rich environment.
    That started the paradigm shift for me, it took about two years to completely clean out the uniformitarian model and imbed the young earth paradigm which has informed my work up until now.

    Throughout the 1990s I was involved with prospecting for gold in western Arizona, in what’s referred to as the Basin and Range province. In the late 1980s a series of low angle (nearly horizontal) faults were identified extending from southern Nevada into northern Mexico and from the Mogollon Rim in the east of Arizona into the western California desert. In all of these faults, the upper detatchment moved west, often great distances. These were given the name of detatchment faults and through drilling and surface mapping were well mapped within a few years as they often host economic deposits. Their formation has never been properly explained, but consider that they they occur only south of the Sierra Nevada and north of the Sierra Madre, mountains thrust up by western movement of the NA continent. Postulating D. Browns estimate of 30 mph at the rate of continental movement, these faults could only have been formed by inertia, since they have no compression features. Think similar to sliding a deck of cards across a slick table and the bottom card hits an obstruction, the upper cards slide off in the same pattern as these detatchment faults.

    People much better informed than I need to discuss this.

    Now for the question which prompted me to post here, is anyone familiar with the current theories of abiatic oil creation? Since the vegetative decomposition theories of oil creation have been abandoned, and evidently the Russians have an idea that igneous rock could be the source with the oil being produced in a sort of classic metamorphic environment, I’m considering an alternative theory, to wit:

    Could Dr. Browns hydro chambers have possibly been populated with a kind of living sponge, a living bio-mass encircling the entire globe and nearly a mile thick? If it had a sound structure, it could have resisted the outrush of the mineral rich solution and simply crushed into a thinner mass at the MOHO layer. Some very strange life forms have been discovered nearby to black smokers, and at extreme ocean depths. This could provide a
    not-so-conventional biosource for gas and petroleum (not coal), but explain both the abundance and the evident (?) emergence of petroleum from evidently deep seated sources.

    Since I’m not an academic, and busy mining in S America for the last 10 years, my last word is that since 1990 or so I’ve seen multiple evidences of something like the hydroplate theory prove out in field observations on both American continents.

  7. Terry A. Hurlbut says:

    Thank you for your perspective, and your question. I must see that Dr. Brown gets this.

  8. gonetogalt says:

    I had been told that Dr. Brown had passed away, evidently he shares that exaggerated and fabled history with Sam Clemens.
    I had the privilege of meeting with him & Mrs. Brown once at his house about 15 years ago. He wouldn’t remember me but please pass my regards.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I certainly shall.

      He is not only very much alive; he is just as spry as ever, and still hard at work.

      He has reviewed your comment, by the way. He told me he already has his explanation for the MOHO layer. But the Hydroplate Theory can also explain the recent Brazil oil discovery (beneath five miles of water, five miles of rock, and five miles of salt!) far better than can conventional geology.

  9. gonetogalt says:

    Right, well, I don’t have a copy of the book nearby, (I give one or more away each year), but my impression was that the MOHO was the source of the fountains of the deep. The Brazilian field is much in the news around here and I think it’s mentioned in the article that got me thinking along these lines. The BP blowout well certainly is. Is Brazil referenced in the latest “In the Beginning”?
    Aside from my misunderstanding of that, I’m wondering if anyone on here is familiar with the most recent theories of oil formation?
    The article that got me wondering is this:
    http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/print/Epochal Tectonic Shift.pdf

    It’s actually very informative regarding the politics of oil, the mention of Abiatic oil formation is in the last portion. I hope it links.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.