Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in the 21st Century," Mortenson (2003) offers an apology for and defense of the Christian creation story. The author's primary defense of the Biblical creation story is that there are "social, moral, and spiritual implications" of believing in science. The strengths of the article include the fact that it is mildly entertaining, appeals to a specific audience, and provides some insight into the history of science and ideas in the nineteenth century. The weaknesses of the article include erroneous claims and false assumptions. Therefore, the weaknesses of the article outweigh its strengths.
Brief Overview and Main Points
"The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in the 21st Century" is a brief article that primarily outlines the evolution of scientific thought regarding the origin of the Earth. Mortenson (2003) refers to Enlightenment-era scientists and their theories of how the earth was formed. The author focuses mainly on European geologists, but also includes references to biologists who laid the foundations for what would become Darwin's theory of the evolution of species. Therefore, the author links geological with biological evolution. A large part of the essay is devoted to a discussion of the "scriptural geologists"...
The main point of the article is that science is partly responsible for moral decay because it is anti-Bible.
Article Strengths
The strengths of the article include the fact that it appeals to its target audience of Christian readers. It is thankfully brief and to the point. Also, the article provides a somewhat thorough yet brief outline of the evolution of scientific thought regarding the origin of earth and its inhabitants. Non-Christian readers may also find the article humorous, which can be viewed as a strength.
Article Weaknesses
The article is not peer-reviewed. The author denies the tenets of science without reasonable justification. By associating science with "rapid moral and social decline," the author commits several logical fallacies concurrently such as false conclusions. After all, social ills are nothing new, and certainly cannot be attributed to science. Mortenson (2003) goes so far as to link science to "exploitative capitalism, Nazism, racism, and communism." Interestingly, Mortenson (2003) chooses to ignore the fact that the Bible was used to justify slavery. Mortenson (2003) also offers falsehoods such as the assertion that Darwin's theory "does not fit the facts of reality." If…
Because Mortenson's (2003) article is written for a Christian audience, it is effective in that it supports the Christian worldview. Readers cannot demand more of Mortenson, because the author has never attempted to offer any substantive or logical argument. The article achieves the goal of enabling Christians to deny science, in part by saying that science has been associated with social decay and moral decline. Mortenson (2003) truly believes in the Biblical creation story as being a fact, which is his prerogative.
Reference
Mortenson, T. (2003). The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in the 21st Century. Retrieved online: https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/origin-of-old-earth-geology-and-ramifications-for-21st-century/
Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies Terry Mortenson's "The origins of old-earth geology…" is quite an interesting read. The author covers a fair amount of both scientific and religious history in a relatively short amount of text. He writes with a certain scholarly flair, and is discussing pivotal information about the history of the earth and how that has been interpreted by men of different religious convictions. Typically, articles that address
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