Re: Dr. Terry Mortenson, Philadelphia College of the Bible

Dr. Terry Mortenson, Philadelphia College of the BibleThe University of Coventry was the Lanchester Coll of Technology until it became one of our "new" universities in the early 90s. In the league table it is about 90-100 out of 110. It has no history of geology dept and Mortenson did his Ph d through Wycliffe College Oxford.-

Several historians of science have said his thesis is very flawed, I know his external examiners, one Paul Marston has been shredded in AIG journals including over his examining. I have a copy at present and reading it makes me proud I have no research degree (I am not eligible to join the Creation Research Society on educational grounds!)

His Ph D is risible and much is on the AIG website with nasty comments about Dave Young. His lack of discernment is profound as he vainly tries to prove the competence of Anti/Scripturalgeologists of the 19th cnetury of whom Fairholme was one of the best!!!!! See below.

Actually he is totally corect that Christian geologists opened the way for geol ages decades before Darwin - most saw no problem (private email following).

I chuckle about Darwin's finches. He rang me in 1992 when he was starting his Ph.D. and didnt know what the ship the Beagle was !! It was quite important in the 1830s

Michael

*****************************************
Extract on Fearsome

One of the frequent contributors to the Christian Observer during the 1820s and 1830s on anti-geology was George Fearsome (1789-1846), who signed himself as "A Layman on Scriptural Geology". Fearsome was Scottish born and had no university education. According to Sorenson his denominational affiliation is not known, nor are his evangelical convictions. As well as contributing to the Christian Observer and the Philosophical Magazine, Fearsome wrote on the General View of the Geology of Scripture (1833) and the Mosaic Deluge (1837). The preface of the latter discusses the theological results and scepticism caused by geology and especially the rejection of a universal deluge, "there cannot be conceived a principle more pregnant with mischief to the simple reception of scripture". All emphasis is put on the universality of the Deluge; - "if false....then has our Blessed Saviour himself aided in promoting the belief of that falsehood, by ....alluding both to the fact and the universality of its destructive consequences to mankind".(p61) Fearsome made much of stems of tall plants, which intersect many strata, (an idea revived today by Creationists with their Polystyrene fossils) and above all he emphasised a rapidity of deposition.

            In the General View of the Geology of Scripture (1833) Fearsome gave the air of geological competence, enhanced by his ability to cite geological works. His geology simply does not bear comparison with major geological writers of the 1820s and 1830s, whether Buckland, Sedgwick, Conybeare, Henslow, or amateurs like Pye Smith. Though he claimed to carry out geological fieldwork, there is no evidence that he did more than ramble though the countryside. There are no field notebooks like those of Sedgwick or Darwin. His lack of geological competence is best seen in his discussion of the relationship of coal to chalk. (In the Geologic Column coal is found in the Upper Carboniferous or Pennsylvanian strata and chalk in the Upper Cretaceous.) Fairholme wrote;

the chalk formation is placed far above that of coal, apparently from no better reason, than that chalk usually presents an elevation on the upper surface, while coal must be looked for at various depths below the level of the ground. (Fairholme 1833 p243)

He had previously discussed this (op cit p207-210) and concluded, having mis-understood an article in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, that "Nothing can be clearer than this account; and it appears certain, that, as in the case of the Paris Basin, this lime-stone formed the bed of the antediluvian sea, on which the diluvial deposits of coal, clay, ironstone, and free-stone, were alternately laid at the same period."(p209)

It is clear that Fairholme regards Carboniferous Limestone and the Cretaceous chalk as the same formation, and wrote on coal fields that , "they lie among sandstones, ., but have, in no instance, been found below chalk, which is one of the best defined secondary formations immediately preceding the Deluge, ." Thus the Cretaceous strata are pre-Flood and the Coal Measures were deposited during the Flood!

            To any geologist today that is risible, but it is clearly wrong to judge Fairholme's geological competence by the geological standards of 2004. However, by the geological standards of 1830 they are still risible! When Fairholme penned these words, it had been known for decades that Chalk always, always overlie the Coal Measures with a vast thickness of strata in between. In 1799 William Smith drew up a list of strata from the coal measures to the chalk and extended this in the table accompanying his geological map of 1815 (Phillips 1844/2003). This was put to immediate effect by Smith and John Farey in their search for coal, who stressed that it was futile to look for coal in the Jurassic and Creataceous strata. A notorious example was coal hunting at Bexhill, Sussex from 1805 to 1811 where fortunes were lost by looking in the wrong strata, despite Farey's warnings (Torrens 2002). Smith's work was re-iterated with shades by plagiarism by Greenough in his own geological maps of 1818 and 182 (Darwin used a copy of the 182 edition in 1831.). In their Outlines of the geology of England and Wales (1822) Conybeare and Phillips gave the succession from the Carboniferous limestone through to the Chalk. Continental geologists like Cuvier and Brogniart, who had worked extensively in the Paris Basin, gave the same succession. Thus by the standards of his day, Fairholme was talking utter nonsense as he was when he wrote, "But during the awful event [the Deluge] we are now considering, all animated nature ceased to exist, and consequently, the floating bodies of the dead bodies must have been bouyed up until the bladders burst, by the force of the increasing air contained within them. p257

It is impossible to agree with Mortenson's assessment of Fairholme, "By early nineteenth century standards, George Fairholme was quite competent to critically analyze old-earth geological theories,"(Mortenson 252) It is small wonder that contemporary geologists dismissed Fairholme and his fellow travellers with derision and contempt. Though Fairholme took it upon himself to criticise almost every aspect of geology, he did so from a position of sheer ignorance, as is evidenced by his claim that Chalk always underlies Coal.

Fairholme, like all Anti-geologists, attempted from his armchair to find fault with geology, which he ultimately regarded as infidel, but without exception his "scientific" objections were a total misunderstanding of geology. It is small wonder that they were rounded on by geologists such as Sedgwick`, who wrote of them in scathing ways. In A Discourse on the Studies of the University (1834 - 1969), he wrote that the anti-geologists "have committed the folly and the sin of dogmatizing on matters they have not personally examined." (106) And regarded some as "beyond all hope of rational argument." Then, as now, the advantage of writing such ridiculous works is that the refuting of them is beyond the wit of rational people.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mccarrick, Alan D CIV 9212
  To: ASA List
  Cc: Michael Roberts
  Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:56 PM
  Subject: Dr. Terry Mortenson, Philadelphia College of the Bible

  My wife's almamater Philadelphia College of the Bible (PCB) - now known as Philadelphia Biblical University (PBU) has an interview with Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis in their recent College magazine (Summer 2005 issue). I know the PBU has creationist speakers occasionally on campus, and they are 98% YEC.

  Dr. Terry Mortenson has a PhD in "history of geology" from University of Coventry (UK). Does anyone know about that school (Michael) ?

  Dr. Mortenson's comments in the interview seem pretty poor. He claims that the Christian geologists of years before Darwin were "leading the church into accepting the millions of years..." No discussion of why they felt that the accumulating data was convincing them of the truth of great age. Mortenson talks often about finches beaks as if that was the sum total of Darwin's findings. Mortenson talks about "varieties" of finches rather than "species" - "finches changing into finches is not evolution."

  He also states that all fossil hominds are just "bone size variation, but none of it outside the range that we see in humans... "Some people have very heavy, bony eyebrow ridges that jut out over their eyes..."

  In addition, he states that the DNA similarity between humans and ape is of no consequence: "evolutionary arguments from DNA similarity are ... ridiculous."

  As for transition fossils, "[They are] not there... So the evolutionists, after 150 years of looking, can only point to a handful of transitional forms to support their theory, and every one of those claimed examples are highly debatable, even among evolutionists."

  His primary motivation for demanding a young earth is Biblical interpretation. I feel that I can sympathize with (but not accept) that position (as opposed to stating that the evidence clearly demands it).

  The school that supply Godly, intelligent, loving pastors for evangelical churches continues to equate Biblical faith with YEC.

  Al McCarrick
Received on Thu Jul 28 16:42:57 2005