I checked your link, and ya know, the preamble stinks. Ken Harding should have just gotten to his list and made a scientific argument. But no, he couldn't resist gratuitous dainties like...
"While the biblical flood story is almost certainly derived from the earlier Babylonian flood mythology..."
What does this have to do with science?
And what is the source of Harding's "almost" certainty? He doesn't say.
However, it's popular to believe that the Genesis account of the Flood is derived from that of Gilgamesh, and odds are this is the basis of Harding's commentary.
Setting aside for the moment the Historical accuracy of the Flood accounts one way or the other, there's a serious problem with this interpretation... it's based on a fallacy of literary superposition. This fallacy lead to the judgement of modern criticism that Genesis is derived from Gilgamesh simply because they share common details and our earliest copy of Genesis is younger than our earliest copy of Gilgamesh. That's it.
But that's like saying that recent investigations of the JFK assassination are all derived from Mark Lane's seminal tinfoil theorist "Rush to Judgement," which was published in the 1960s, simply because they came later. Obviously, that's not logically necessary.
There is no sound basis for concluding that Genesis is derived from Gilgamesh.
So when Ken Harding makes this error of literary criticism, one wonders what ax he has to grind, even has he's demonstrating Henry Morris' Creationist biases.
Is it too much to ask for scientists to stick to science?
