Article Weaknesses: Mortenson's attempt to discredit the many years of authentic science is flawed; it is obvious he is attempting to build a case against evolution and insert his narrow Christian viewpoint, but it doesn't work very well. His assertion that evolution has "…come under considerable fire in the past four decades" and that there is "strong scientific evidence against evolution" is absurd. The only groups that attack the science from Darwin's discoveries -- and the plethora of empirical scientific fossil-based, geologic discoveries subsequent to Darwin's work -- are evangelical Christian groups, religious fundamentalists who want creationism published in high school textbooks next to evolution data, and others that accept creationism as fact.

Another assertion in this article that is patently ridiculous and bizarre is the notion that if Genesis is "rejected as literal accurate history" in a matter of time "other parts of the Bible would be rejected too." Moreover, Mortenson is out of touch with science and society when he quotes "One scriptural...

There is no reason why people can't believe in God and in evolution at the same time, and those like Mortenson and others who stubbornly insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old are either deliberately or unknowingly driving a wedge between religion and science. It won't work, and people like Mortenson, albeit probably sincere in their beliefs, are simply promoting ignorance in denial-based narratives that muddy science and discredit them at the same time.
Works Cited

Mortenson, Terry. (2003). The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in the 21st Century. Retrieved June 16, 2012, from http://www.answersingenesis.org.