INTRODUCTION
When “Biblical Worldview” Becomes YECism
In May 2026, Dr. Terry Mortenson — a long time Answers in Genesis speaker with a Ph. D. in the history of geology — published a three‑part series attempting to define what he calls a “truly biblical worldview.” Across these articles, he advances a sweeping thesis: Young Earth Creationism (YECism) is essential to Christian orthodoxy, foundational to the gospel, and necessary for a faithful biblical worldview. Old‑earth views, he argues, are “syncretistic,” “compromised,” and ultimately destructive to Christian faith and culture.
These are not small claims. They are not peripheral claims. They are not even merely interpretive claims. They are structural claims about the nature of truth, the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimacy of entire branches of the global church. Mortenson is not simply arguing for YEC; he is arguing that YECism is the only faithful Christian position, and that Christians who disagree with his presuppositions are undermining the gospel, eroding biblical authority, and contributing to cultural collapse.
The scope of the argument is enormous. And the problems with it are equally enormous — historical, theological, hermeneutical, scientific, and pastoral. Mortenson’s project is not simply a defense of YEC; it is a redefinition of Christianity built on a modern biblicist epistemology that collapses natural revelation, denies the legitimacy of scientific inquiry, and elevates one interpretation of Genesis 1-11 to the level of doctrinal necessity.
SECTION I — Mortenson’s Redefinition of Theological Triage
How a Category Meant to Protect the Gospel Is Reengineered to Protect Young Earth Creationism
When Terry Mortenson opens his first article, he begins in familiar territory. He summarizes Albert Mohler’s “theological triage” model — a framework many evangelicals use to distinguish doctrines essential to salvation from those that shape denominational identity or allow for legitimate disagreement. (1) Mortenson affirms the model, acknowledges that not all doctrines are equally clear or equally central, and even concedes that Christians can disagree on many issues without jeopardizing their salvation.
At first glance, it appears he is laying a foundation for a balanced discussion. But this alignment with Mohler’s framework lasts only a few paragraphs. Very quickly, Mortenson pivots away from Mohler’s categories and begins reshaping the entire triage model to serve a very different purpose. What begins as a descriptive tool for protecting gospel essentials becomes a rhetorical mechanism for elevating Young Earth Creationism into a category of near‑orthodoxy. (2)
This pivot is subtle, but decisive. It is the hinge on which the rest of his argument turns.
The Pivot: From Salvation to “Worldview”
Mortenson’s key move comes when he writes:
“While this model of theological triage is a way of categorizing doctrines for salvation or church membership, it is not adequate to distinguish between a truly biblical worldview and a partial biblical worldview.” — Theological Triage: What Are the Essential Doctrines for Christianity and How Do We Decide?
This sentence is the fulcrum of the entire series. By declaring Mohler’s triage “not adequate,” Mortenson frees himself from the constraints of Mohler’s categories — especially Mohler’s insistence that the age of the earth is a third‑order doctrine. Once Mortenson shifts the conversation from salvation to worldview, he is no longer bound by the question, “What must a person believe to be saved?” He can now ask a different question: “What must a person believe to have a fully biblical worldview?”
And because he is the one defining “fully biblical worldview,” he can place YEC wherever he wants.
This is not a theological discovery. It is a rhetorical strategy.
Inventing a New Category: “Vital to a Biblical Worldview”
After declaring Mohler’s triage insufficient, Mortenson introduces a new category — one that does not exist in Mohler’s framework, nor in historic Christian theology. He writes:
“There are biblical teachings that are vital to a biblical worldview that would not normally be labeled a first-tier issue.” — Theological Triage: What Are the Essential Doctrines for Christianity and How Do We Decide?
This is the moment where YEC is quietly smuggled into the realm of “vital doctrine.” Mortenson acknowledges that YEC is not a salvation issue, but insists it is nevertheless essential to Christian faithfulness, orthodoxy, and worldview. He has created a new tier — not required for salvation, but required for “full biblical fidelity.”
This new tier is tailor‑made to elevate YECism.
It is not derived from Scripture. It is not derived from church history. It is not derived from theological tradition.
It is derived from Mortenson’s commitment to YEC.
The Shift From Gospel Essentials to Worldview Gatekeeping
Once Mortenson has created this new category, he begins making claims that would be impossible within Mohler’s framework. He argues that accepting an old earth:
These are sweeping accusations — and they are not supported by Scripture or by the history of Christian interpretation. (3) But they become rhetorically possible because Mortenson has changed the rules of the game. He is no longer talking about salvation. He is talking about “worldview,” a category he defines so broadly that anything he dislikes can be labeled “compromise.”
Within Mohler’s triage, these claims would be absurd. Mohler explicitly states that old‑earth Christians are faithful believers, colleagues, and fellow laborers in the gospel. (4) Mortenson essentially rejects Mohler’s conclusion by rejecting Mohler’s categories.
The Logical Problem: Category Engineering
Mortenson’s argument in Article 1 follows a predictable pattern:
He believes YECism is essential.
Mohler’s triage does not place YECism in an essential category.
Therefore, he declares Mohler’s triage “inadequate.”
He invents a new category — “vital to a biblical worldview.”
He places YECism inside it.
He then treats that category as authoritative.
This is circular reasoning. It is not theological argumentation. It is category engineering designed to elevate and protect YEC assumptions from scrutiny (this is the same sort of unfalsifiability we see in Answers in Genesis’ statement of faith, where any evidence that contradicts their interpretive assumptions is deemed invalid from the outset). (5)
Mortenson is not discovering that YECism is essential. He is constructing a framework in which YECism can be declared essential.
The Historical Problem: The Church Never Treated YEC as Essential
Mortenson’s redefinition of “essential” doctrine is also historically indefensible. For nearly two millennia, the church did not treat the age of the earth as orthodoxy. The early church did not treat literal 24‑hour days as orthodoxy. Medieval theologians did not treat Genesis 1–11 as scientific chronology. The Reformers did not elevate YECism to orthodoxy. The Westminster Confession does not define the age of the earth.
Mortenson’s claim that YEC is “vital to a biblical worldview” is not supported by the church’s actual history. It is supported only by the fabricated history of modern American fundamentalism.
In sum:
Mortenson begins his series by affirming Mohler’s theological triage — but only long enough to redefine it. He shifts the conversation from salvation to worldview, invents a new category of “vital doctrine,” and places YEC inside it. This move is not supported by Scripture, church history, or theological tradition. It is supported only by Mortenson’s commitment to YEC and his biblicist hermeneutic.
This redefinition sets the stage for the rest of the series, where Mortenson will argue that YEC is essential to orthodoxy, foundational to the gospel, and necessary for Christian faithfulness. But those arguments depend entirely on the category engineering performed in Article 1.
SECTION II — Mortenson’s Redefinition of “Biblical Worldview”
How Genesis 1–11 Becomes a Gatekeeper for Orthodoxy
Having reengineered theological triage in the first article, Mortenson turns in his second piece to the question of what constitutes a “truly biblical worldview.” This is where the full weight of his argument becomes clear. The category he invented in Article 1 — “vital to a biblical worldview” — now becomes the foundation for a sweeping claim: a fully biblical worldview requires Young Earth Creationism. Not simply belief in creation, not simply belief in divine agency, but belief in a specific interpretation of Genesis 1–11 that aligns with the claims of modern scientific Creationism.
The Definition Designed to Produce the Desired Outcome
Mortenson begins by asserting that Genesis 1–11 is foundational to the biblical worldview. In one sense, this is uncontroversial: Genesis does provide the theological framework for creation, fall, human identity, and divine purpose. All Christians accept this. But Mortenson does not stop there. He insists that Genesis 1–11 must be read as strict, sequential, scientific history in order to be true and authoritative — and that any deviation from this reading constitutes compromise with atheistic naturalism. (6)
He writes:
“...the doctrine of young-earth creation should be considered essential to orthodox Christianity and a truly biblical worldview.” — What is Essential for a Truly Biblical Worldview?
This is not a conclusion drawn from Scripture. It is a conclusion drawn from Mortenson’s definition of “biblical worldview.” He defines the term in a way that guarantees YECism is required, then uses that definition to argue that YECism is required. The argument never leaves its own orbit.
Mortenson’s definition is not descriptive; it is prescriptive. It does not describe what Christians historically believed; it prescribes what Christians must believe now. And because he has already created a category of “vital doctrine” in Article 1, he can now place YEC inside it and treat it as essential.
The Historical Claim: “The Church Held YEC for 1,800 Years”
Mortenson attempts to bolster his argument by appealing to church history. He writes:
“On the surface, Genesis 1–11 certainly appears to teach what is often called young-earth creation, and that is the way most of the church understood these chapters during the first 1,800 years of church history.” — What is Essential for a Truly Biblical Worldview?
This claim is historically indefensible. (7)
The early church did not read Genesis the way Mortenson demands. Jewish interpreters varied widely. Early Christian theologians offered a range of interpretations — literal, allegorical, analogical, and theological. Augustine explicitly rejected 24‑hour days, arguing that God created “all things at once” and that the “days” of Genesis represent logical, not temporal, order. Origen rejected literal chronology and treated the creation narrative as theological symbolism. Basil and Ambrose used Genesis to teach doctrine, not science.
Medieval theologians likewise did not treat the age of the earth as dogma. They debated chronology, allegory, and the nature of the “days,” but did not elevate any particular interpretation to orthodoxy. The Reformers did not treat YEC as essential. Luther and Calvin affirmed creation but did not define the age of the earth as a boundary marker. The Westminster Confession does not specify the age of the earth or the length of the creation days. And neither does any other historical creed or council.
Mortenson’s historical narrative is not supported by primary sources. It is the product of Seventh-day Adventism and American fundamentalism, which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. YECism as Mortenson defines it — with its emphasis on scientific chronology, global flood geology, and a 6,000‑year timeline — is a modern movement, not a historic Christian doctrine.
The Theological Claim: Old‑Earth Views Make God “Stupid, Wasteful, Cruel, Evil, and Impotent”
Mortenson’s most extreme claim appears in the middle of Article 2, where he argues that accepting an old earth is not merely incorrect but morally and theologically offensive. He writes:
“The millions-of-years Creator would be stupid, wasteful, cruel, evil, impotent and incapable of stating in plain language when, how and in what order he created the world.” — What is Essential for a Truly Biblical Worldview?
This is not theology. It is rhetoric designed to shame Christians into adopting YECism. It is also a profound misrepresentation of the biblical doctrine of creation. Scripture consistently portrays God’s creative work as wise, purposeful, and good — regardless of the timescale involved. Psalm 19 celebrates the heavens as declaring the glory of God. Psalm 104 describes God’s ongoing providential care for creation. Job 38–41 presents a God whose creative acts are vast, mysterious, and beyond human comprehension. Romans 1:20 affirms that creation reveals God’s eternal power and divine nature.
None of these passages hinge on the age of the earth.
Mortenson’s argument assumes that God must act in ways that satisfy modern human expectations of efficiency, immediacy, and moral intuitiveness. If creation took billions of years, or if animal death is not the direct result of Adam’s sin, he argues, then God must be incompetent or cruel. This is anthropocentric reasoning, not biblical reasoning. It imposes human standards of productivity and goodness onto divine action and treats any deviation as theological failure — effectively scaling God’s character to fit Mortenson’s own assumptions and demands. (8, 9, 10)
The irony is that Mortenson accuses old‑earth Christians of syncretism with naturalism, yet his own argument depends on a thoroughly modern, mechanistic conception of divine action — one that would have been foreign to the early church, the medieval theologians, and the Reformers.
The Hermeneutical Claim: Genesis 1–11 Must Be Read as Scientific Chronology
Mortenson’s argument depends on a particular hermeneutic: Genesis 1–11 must be read as strict, sequential, scientific history. He insists that the text is Hebrew historical narrative and therefore must be interpreted literally in all details.
But Genesis 1–11 contains poetic structure, parallelism, symbolic numerology, archetypal imagery, ancient Near Eastern cosmological motifs, theological framing, and non‑chronological narrative patterns. It is not offering a modern, comprehensive account of the “true history of the universe.” This would require Scripture to be answering modern scientific questions that were completely foreign to the worldview of the original audience. It is instead a theological narrative that communicates truth through literary artistry and the conceptual language of the ancient Near East, not through scientific description or modern historiographical conventions.
Mortenson’s hermeneutic is not how ancient texts work, nor how the creation accounts of Genesis 1-2 were intended to be read within their own historical and cultural context. It is modern literalism projected backward onto an ancient polemical text. This was a central point in my debate with JD Longmire: the insistence that Genesis must be read as a modern scientific chronology is not derived from the text itself. It is imposed upon the text by a particular theological agenda.
The Epistemological Claim: Old‑Earth Views Are Syncretistic
Mortenson repeatedly claims that accepting an old earth is syncretistic — a compromise with atheistic naturalism. He argues that old‑earth Christians have mixed biblical truth with anti‑biblical ideas and therefore cannot possess a “fully biblical worldview.”
This claim collapses under scrutiny.
Old‑earth views do not arise from atheistic assumptions. They arise from natural revelation — the study of God’s world — interpreted through the same scientific methods Christians use in medicine, engineering, and technology. Mortenson’s argument depends on collapsing methodological naturalism (a scientific method) into philosophical naturalism (a worldview). This conflation is not accurate and not fair. And ironically, he even allows scientific claims to inform his YEC interpretations when it suits him, selectively appealing to scientific data to reinforce his reading of Genesis while rejecting the same scientific methods when they contradict it. (11, 12, 13)
The charge of syncretism is not a theological argument. It is a rhetorical weapon.
In sum:
Mortenson’s redefinition of “biblical worldview” is not derived from Scripture, church history, or theological tradition. It is derived from his commitment to Young Earth Creationism. By defining “biblical worldview” in a way that guarantees YEC is required, he creates a framework in which old‑earth Christians can be dismissed as compromised, syncretistic, or unfaithful — regardless of their actual theology, faithfulness, or commitment to Scripture.
This section of Mortenson’s series is not an argument for YEC. It is an argument for excluding old‑earth Christians from the category of “fully biblical.” It is gatekeeping disguised as worldview analysis.
SECTION III — Mortenson’s Inflation of Sola Scriptura into Biblicism
How a Reformation Doctrine Becomes a Totalizing Epistemology
By the time Mortenson reaches the third article in his series, the trajectory of his argument is clear. He has already reengineered theological triage to create a new category of “vital worldview doctrine,” and he has already defined “biblical worldview” in a way that guarantees Young Earth Creationism is required. What remains is to explain why Christians must accept his interpretation of Genesis 1–11 — not merely as one option among many, but as the only faithful reading of Scripture. (14)
To accomplish this, Mortenson turns to the doctrine of biblical authority. But instead of presenting the historic Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, he presents a radically inflated version of it — one that collapses natural revelation, denies the legitimacy of scientific inquiry, and treats Scripture as the supreme authority in all domains of knowledge, including those Scripture never intended to address.
The Key Statement: Scripture as Judge of “All Truth Claims”
Mortenson’s most revealing claim appears early in Article 3, where he writes:
“Since [the Bible] is the only divinely inspired, inerrant book, it must be the supreme authority in all that it teaches, not just in matters of religion and morality or theology and the gospel. Its teachings must sit in judgment over all the truth claims (no matter how scholarly or how widely believed) of sinful human beings.” — How Do We Impart a Truly Biblical Worldview?
This is not Sola Scriptura.
This is solo scriptura — the belief that Scripture is the only legitimate source of knowledge and final arbiter of truth in all fields.
Historic Sola Scriptura affirms that Scripture is the final authority for establishing doctrine and in matters of faith and Christian practice. It does not claim that Scripture overrides astronomy, geology, physics, or any other domain of natural revelation. It does not claim that Scripture must sit in judgment over scientific models or empirical data. It does not claim that Scripture is the only source of knowledge and truth.
Mortenson’s version collapses all knowledge into biblical literalism. It is epistemological isolationism.
And it is precisely the kind of biblicism I have critiqued in previous articles: a system in which Scripture is forced to answer questions it was never intended to address, and in which one particular interpretation of Genesis becomes the litmus test for Christian faithfulness. (15, 16, 17)
The Historic Doctrine: What Sola Scriptura Actually Means
To understand how far Mortenson’s claim departs from historic Christianity, we need to recall what Sola Scriptura actually means.
The Reformers taught:
Scripture is the final authority in matters of faith and practice.
Scripture is sufficient for salvation and Christian living.
Scripture is clear in its essential teachings.
Scripture is inerrant in what it affirms.
But they also taught:
God reveals Himself in nature.
Natural revelation is true and trustworthy.
Human reason and inquiry are legitimate tools for understanding creation and God’s Word.
Scripture does not replace scientific investigation.
Scripture does not override empirical observation.
Scripture does not function as a scientific manual.
Calvin famously described creation as the “theater of God’s glory.”
The Belgic Confession speaks of two books: the book of Scripture and the book of nature.
The Westminster Confession affirms that “the light of nature” reveals truth.
Mortenson’s claim that Scripture must “sit in judgment over all truth claims” is not Reformation theology. It is a modern biblicist assertion meant to shield his assumptions from criticism.
The Collapse of Natural Revelation
Mortenson’s epistemology requires collapsing natural revelation into Scripture. He repeatedly argues that scientific conclusions are suspect because they arise from “naturalistic assumptions.” He insists that Christians must interpret scientific evidence through the lens of his reading of Genesis 1–11 — not through the methods of scientific inquiry.
But Scripture itself repeatedly affirms the legitimacy of natural revelation and the trustworthiness of God’s works in nature and history. Whether he realizes it or not, Mortenson’s epistemology denies the very thing Scripture affirms: that creation is a source of truth.
His version of biblicism is not a Reformation doctrine.
It is a denial of natural revelation.
The Consequence: Scripture Must Function as a Scientific Textbook
Once natural revelation is collapsed, Scripture must take its place. Mortenson’s epistemology requires Scripture to answer scientific questions — not because Scripture intends to, but because Mortenson’s system leaves no other source of knowledge.
This is why he insists that Genesis 1–11 must be read as scientific chronology.
This is why he insists that radiometric dating is invalid.
This is why he insists that cosmology is “philosophy.”
This is why he insists that geology is “interpretation.”
This is why he insists that evolutionary biology and deep time are “atheistic.”
Mortenson’s hermeneutic is not derived from the text.
It is derived from his epistemology — his assumptions and a priori commitment to YECism are driving his interpretation of Scripture, not the other way around.
If Scripture must judge “all truth claims,” then Scripture must be interpreted in a way that produces answers to all truth claims. And because Mortenson believes YECism is the correct answer, he must interpret Genesis (and science) in a way that produces YEC results.
This is not exegesis.
It is reverse‑engineered hermeneutics.
The Consequence for Christian Unity: A New Litmus Test for Orthodoxy
Mortenson’s inflated version of Sola Scriptura has real pastoral consequences. If Scripture must judge “all truth claims,” and if Mortenson’s interpretation of Genesis is the correct one, then Christians who disagree with him are not merely mistaken — they are compromised. (18)
This is why he repeatedly describes old‑earth Christians as:
These are not theological arguments.
They are boundary‑setting statements.
Mortenson’s epistemology creates a new litmus test for orthodoxy: acceptance of YECism. Christians who reject YECism are not simply wrong; they are unfaithful. They do not possess a “fully biblical worldview” and are to be viewed as morally and spiritually suspect.
Mortenson’s Proposed Solution: A Program of Ideological Conditioning
If Mortenson’s redefinition of orthodoxy creates a new litmus test for Christian faithfulness, his final article reveals the practical outworking of that system. What he proposes is not merely teaching Genesis, nor simply encouraging Christians to value Scripture. It is a comprehensive program of worldview conditioning designed to ensure that Christians adopt the Answers in Genesis version of young‑earth creationism as the foundation of their faith.
Mortenson’s closing article is not subtle. He argues that Christians must be trained — systematically, repeatedly, and from childhood — to interpret all scientific evidence through the lens of YECism. He insists that pastors, parents, teachers, missionaries, and seminary professors must actively inculcate this worldview in those under their care. As he writes:
“We must equip them to defend the faith and give them a burden to boldly proclaim the gospel to their generation that has been so brainwashed with the lies of evolution, millions of years, and the big bang.” — How Do We Impart a Truly Biblical Worldview?
But Mortenson does not leave the method to imagination. He prescribes a specific curriculum: Answers in Genesis materials. He repeatedly instructs Christians to rely on AiG books, videos, curricula, museums, websites, and apologetics courses as the authoritative framework for interpreting Scripture, science, and culture. His recommended resources include:
The New Answers Book
Glass House
The Young Earth
Creation to Babel
Answers for Kids
Answers Books for Kids
Quick Answers to Tough Questions
Answers Bible Curriculum
AiG’s website and video library
AiG’s museum and Ark Encounter
AiG’s seminary‑level books
AiG’s lectures and apologetics courses
Mortenson’s “biblical worldview” is not simply Scripture‑centered. It is AiG‑centered. His solution is to embed AiG’s interpretive framework into every level of Christian formation — from preschool to seminary — and to treat AiG’s materials as the authoritative lens through which all Christians must read Genesis, evaluate science, and interpret culture. (19)
This is not discipleship.
It is institutionalized worldview conditioning.
Mortenson instructs Christian leaders to preach Genesis 1–11 as literal history, tie YECism to every cultural and moral issue, confront old‑earth Christians in their congregations, integrate AiG apologetics into seminary curricula, train children to distrust mainstream science, and treat alternative interpretations of Genesis as spiritually dangerous. As he warns:
“Kids who are taught to believe Genesis 1–11 but are not also given creation apologetics to defend that belief can easily be led away from the Lord by evolutionist high school or college teachers.” — How Do We Impart a Truly Biblical Worldview?
And the “creation apologetics” he prescribes is exclusively AiG’s.
Mortenson’s program requires Christians to treat mainstream science as inherently deceptive, to reinterpret all evidence through AiG literature, and to view alternative interpretations of Genesis as spiritually compromised. It is a closed epistemological system in which AiG’s materials function as the gatekeepers of truth, and in which Christians are instructed to distrust any source outside that system.
The pastoral implications are troubling. Mortenson’s solution demands:
Doctrinal uniformity enforced through AiG curricula.
Suspicion toward Christians who disagree.
Isolation from mainstream scientific knowledge.
Control over children’s intellectual development.
Gatekeeping of acceptable theological views.
Replacement of historic Christian hermeneutics with AiG’s framework.
This is not the unity of the gospel.
It is the architecture of a high‑control ideological system. (20)
In sum:
Mortenson’s use of Sola Scriptura is not the historic Protestant doctrine. It is a radically inflated version that collapses natural revelation, denies the legitimacy of scientific inquiry, and forces Scripture to function in ways it was never intended to. This epistemology is the engine driving his entire worldview. It allows him to treat YECism as essential, to dismiss old‑earth Christians as compromised, and to redefine “biblical worldview” in a way that excludes anyone who disagrees with his interpretation.
But the most troubling feature of Mortenson’s system is not merely its epistemology — it is the programmatic solution he builds upon it. By insisting that Christians must be trained from childhood to interpret all scientific evidence through Answers in Genesis materials, he transforms his inflated version of Sola Scriptura into a mechanism for institutionalized indoctrination. In Mortenson’s framework, AiG’s interpretive grid becomes the required lens for reading Scripture, evaluating science, and forming Christian identity. A “fully biblical worldview” is simply a synonym for YECism, and the path to achieving it is total immersion in AiG’s curriculum.
This should give any reasonable Christian pause. When a single organization’s literature becomes the prescribed foundation for Christian discipleship, when alternative interpretations are treated as spiritually dangerous, and when history and scientific knowledge are framed as inherently deceptive unless filtered through a predetermined ideology, the result is not theological fidelity. It is a high‑control system that confuses doctrinal purity with institutional conformity.
CONCLUSION
A Biblicist Reconstruction, Not a Biblical Worldview
Across all three articles, Mortenson’s argument follows a consistent pattern. He begins by redefining theological triage to create a new category of “vital worldview doctrine.” He then defines “biblical worldview” in a way that guarantees Young Earth Creationism is required. Finally, he inflates Sola Scriptura into a totalizing epistemology that collapses natural revelation, denies the legitimacy of scientific inquiry, and forces Scripture to function as a scientific textbook.
The result is not a defense of biblical authority. It is a redefinition of biblical authority. It is not a defense of Genesis. It is a reconstruction of Genesis. It is not a defense of orthodoxy. It is the creation of a new orthodoxy — one in which YEC becomes the litmus test for faithfulness, and Christians who disagree are dismissed as compromised, syncretistic, or unfaithful.
Mortenson’s project is not Sola Scriptura. It is biblicism — a modern movement that elevates one interpretation of Genesis to the level of doctrinal necessity and treats all other interpretations as theological failure. It is a system in which Scripture is forced to answer questions it was never intended to address, and in which natural revelation is treated not as a gift of God but as a threat to faith. It is a system that collapses the rich diversity of Christian interpretation into a single, rigid, modern literalism.
And Mortenson’s proposed solution only deepens the concern. By urging Christians to immerse their families, churches, and seminaries exclusively in Answers in Genesis materials, he replaces theological discernment with information control, discourages reflection and debate within the body of Christ, and treats disagreement with his own views as evidence of moral decay. What he prescribes is not the historic Christian practice of wrestling with Scripture, but a program of indoctrination and enforced conformity offered as a cure for an “ailment” that is nothing more than the interpretive diversity the church has navigated faithfully for nearly two thousand years.
There is so much wrong in Mortenson’s series — historically, theologically, hermeneutically, scientifically — that no single article can fully unwind it. But the core issue is clear: Mortenson has replaced the historic Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura with a biblicist epistemology that demands YECism as the price of orthodoxy. This is not the gospel. It is not historic Christianity. And it is not “the biblical worldview.”
It is a worldview built on modern assumptions, modern anxieties, and modern literalism — a worldview that claims to defend Scripture but ultimately distorts it to serve its own ends.
A truly biblical worldview does not fear natural revelation. It does not collapse genre. It does not deny history. It does not weaponize orthodoxy. It does not turn Genesis into a scientific manual. And it does not treat faithful Christians who disagree as spiritually compromised.
A truly biblical worldview begins with Scripture, but it does not end with biblicism. It embraces the fullness of God’s revelation — in Scripture, in creation, in history, and in the ongoing work of the Spirit — and it refuses to reduce the Christian faith to a single interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
Mortenson’s project is not that worldview.
It is something smaller, narrower, and more fragile.
And it is time we said so plainly.
.jpg)
