Journall

I.

Old Earth Geology and its long-term effects on the Christian worldview are looking at the present and at the past. The review is looking at the debate and origins of creation from the past. The review is taking a look at the secular and non-secular point of view.

II.

It takes a historical look from the perspective of men and their ideology of chasing the mystery of the beginning of earth. In this article there are references and some background to God creating the world in six literal days that lean toward the catastrophic flood and then there are the beliefs that were evolutionary and naturalistic in character. It appeals to empirical evidence and the laws of nature. Theories in geology continue to display a stage of argument that intrigues the most curious minds of the past and most noticeably the present.

III.

Dr. Mortenson did a great job filtering the ideas of so many different leaders of thought from the past up until the present. Another strength that stood out was the clear concise layout of the different debates. The writing style was simple, direct, and to the point. Points were made very clear in regards to Biblical creation histories regarding scriptural geology compared to the theories of catastrophists and the uniformitarians. Specifically speaking it was encouraging to see Dr. Mortensen take a side on the issue and clarify the effects that we are starting to see in the present. He was able to boldly state that naturalism fails as a worldview.

IV.

Everything that Dr. Mortensen covered in this (Mortenson, 2003) article was mainly an overview and it could have added some comparative depth. There is

obviously was some disagreement in regard to the past and the present but it seems to leave the reader curious if there was some disagreement between those uncommon grounds. Maybe it was due to the lack of length given for the article. However in a debate, people tend to want to get to the details and where and what direction the crowd has gotten lost or taken a detour. With regards to scientific facts, some in the scientific community would argue the facts are self-interpreting. Someone would also argue that history does not show that Scriptural geologists are right. V. In conclusion, this article gave some background to the debate between Scriptural geologists, catastrophists and the uniformitarians. To tackle such a big debate in such a small article is tough. This article captures the reader's interests into further investigation, study and debate of different worldview beginnings. Someone who reads this article will get some overview of the discussion in historical geology with minimal people involved and the arguments presented from the past to the present. It is a nice introduction to capture the interest of someone with questions about the beginning of earth.