18th and 19th Century Geologists

¶ … 18th and 19th century geologists -- and why those of them that had a Christian worldview ("scriptural geologists") were correct and other geologists were wrong in their interpretations. "Old-earth" geologists (those that believe that basically the earth evolved over billions of years) based their interpretations on "anti-biblical philosophical assumptions," Mortenson writes, and he insists that a scientist's "religious worldview" directly affects his "interpretation of the facts."

Brief Overview and Main Points: In Mortenson's view of geology, religion and science, any deviation from how the Bible portrays the origins of the planet is wrong. He attacks geologists that he believes were "deists or some sort of vague theists" (deism holds that God exists but that He does not intervene in human activities through religion). Mortenson names the geologists that published books and were respected at that moment in history but those geologists were biased against the God revealed in Scripture and they didn't accept Biblical "old-earth interpretations"; they are Buffon, Lamarck, Hutton, Laplace, Werner, Cuvier, Smith and Lyell.

Mortenson insists that evidence (about the origin of the planet) presented -- "even among highly trained scientists" -- is always biased based on their own personal philosophical and religious assumptions. In other words, all scientists start out their investigations with a worldview that is either based on evolution or on the religious "old-earth" perspective, and they interpret their findings based on their worldviews.

In Mortenson's view, Charles Lyell (1797-1875), who published the Principles of Geology in 1830 (a three-volume set), was wrong about geology because his approach "simply does not fit the facts." What facts is Mortenson referring to? He is alluding to Christian-based "facts," about Noah's Arc and the great flood, what he calls "catastrophism." The author asserts, "evidence of catastrophism on a continental, even global scale, is becoming increasingly obvious, even to many evolutionists."

Article Strengths: Mortenson presents the work of a number of obscure 18th and 19th century scientists / geologists; many readers would otherwise never would have heard of these men. Also he seems sincere in his presentation and his beliefs.

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 geologist" saying that God will have "righteous vengeance" on those that don't accept the "moral" -- i.e., Mortenson's -- approach to science.