The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in the 21st Century The theories and beliefs about how the world began can be a tense and hot button issue. Usually, it is the Christians vs. the scientists. However, in Mortenson’s article, he presents us with a third group of believers, the Christian scientists. Mortenson explores these beliefs and theories of all three groups, and explains to us the importance of the debate then and now.
Brief Overview and Main Points Christians in Eastern and Western Europe and the United States believed overwhelmingly that the world was created by God in 6 days, and each day was 24 hours long. Belief in this was steadfast until the late 18th century, when different types of theories were developed. These new theories did not include God’s works (or flat-out denied them), but just focused on the origin and history of the earth (Mortenson 2003). . Three French scientists, proposed that the earth was anywhere from 78,000 years old to that the earth was formed an indefinite amount of time, but very, very long ago. These new theories were just focused on biological and geological ideas. At this same period of time, geology was becoming more a legitimate field of study. Abraham Warner, a German mineralogist, was really the first to state that geologically, the earth was at least a million years old. This continued to build and popularize the idea of old-earth theory (Mortenson 2003).
James Hutton, a farmer turned geologist, presented a theory involving erosion as a cycle, stating that he did not see a beginning to earth, and was accused of atheism because of this theory. A lawyer turned geologist, Charles Lyell, used his own ideas to enhance Hutton’s theory. Building on Hutton’s theory of erosion and adding ideas of sediment and natural disasters, Lyell’s theory became the main idea in geology (Mortenson 2003). All of these new views emerged by the early 19th century to form three very different view of earth history. These were catastrophists (catastrophes caused earth to form), uniformitarism (geological change), and scriptural geologists, who believed in the biblical version of creation, and a global flood a short time later (Mortenson 2003). Scriptural geologists tended to vary in training, as some as highly trained in religion, and some were just religious men who took an interest in the subject. These men wrote many different types of books, explaining from both a scientific and personal (religious) point of view how the earth is formed (Mortenson 2003). All these different theories led to a scientific/religious debate that has lasted through current times and will probably last until the end of times.
Article Strengths I thought the author did a very good job at concisely summing up these types of theories and beliefs. He made them very easy to understand with precise and descriptive wording. I thought this article was very easy to read because of that. It is written in such a way that you do not have to have either a scientific or religious background to understand it. I particularly liked the fact that any concepts that came up that may have taken a little more understanding, such as the meanings of the three types of earth history views, are simply explained and applied so everyone can understand. I enjoyed reading this article, and it managed to pique my interest in a topic that I had never had much interest in before. article weaknesses. I think, keeping in mind that I know nothing about the scientists written about in the title, it is possible that Mortenson makes assumptions about the personal religious beliefs and worldview of these scientists. Going strictly on the facts of the article, the religious preferences were not expanded upon. If Mortenson is just based his opinions about their beliefs on just this article, his facts are not adequately supported by this, and may be false. Though this article was written by a writer with a religious worldview, and published in a religious publication, I do not believe Mortenson tends to keep an open mind to all the possibilities presented in the article. However, I do recognize that this was probably the point of the article, to help explain and justify the beliefs in a religious creation of Earth. conclusion. While still highly controversial subject matter in some circles, Mortenson’s article lays out the basic framework of the three schools of thought. With his brief explanation of each theory and applying that to modern theory, he makes it easier to under each concept. While the article could be more objective, it would make a good starting point for anyone interested in learning a little bit more about creation theories.

Reference
Mortenson, T. (2003). The origin of old-earth geology and its ramifications for life in the 21st century. Journal of Creation 18(1):22–26. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/origin-of-old-earth-geology-and-ramifications-for-21st-century/