Origin of Old-Earth Geology and Its Ramifications

¶ … 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" who attempt to reconcile the Bible's creation story with scientific evidence. 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The article is not peer-reviewed.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 that were the case, Mortenson (2003) would need facts to substantiate his claim. Mortenson (2003) has no facts, aside for the names and dates included in the historical background of the essay. The case against science would have been stronger had Mortenson (2003) eliminated the logical fallacies and instead focused on what the best solutions to social ills might be, especially for those who do not believe in the Bible. The author says that science is wrong, without being able to say way other than by saying it conflicts with the Bible.