Talk:Henry M. Morris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Notes

--Filll 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science and Bible Quote

"When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."

This sounds like the sort of thing Morris might say, but does anyone have a reference for it? Google just gives a bunch of other unreferenced uses and doesn't seem to show it on the ICR page. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] penultimate paragraph

I have deleted the parenthetical information in the second to the last paragraph because the information is misleading. Creationist scientists neither wholly accept all operational science, nor wholly reject origins science. Creationism merely states that operational or empirical science is based on repeatable tests and empirically verifiable data. This means that like evolutionist scientists, creationist scientists predicate their assesment of empirical science on whether or not the researcher properly used the scientific method. Origins science, on the other hand, cannot be empirically verified, but is instead based on unprovable assumptions and axiomatic logic. Therefore, to determine whether or not a given origin theory is likely correct, one need only to analyze the data (in this case all scientific measurements of the planet, its geology, morphology, biology, etc.) and interpret them based on one's chosen assumptions (evolution, uniformitarianism and an old universe; creation, catastrophism and a young universe). The question then becomes, which interpretation makes the most sense of the data?
I am also not particularly thrilled with the last paragraph, as I believe it strays in to POV territory, but I'm not sure how to fix it yet. Yeshuamyking7 November 25, 2005

[edit] "No science credentials"

The assertion that Henry Morris has no science credentials is simply false. (by 64.*)

64, I didn't delete anything, I put back a phrase you took out, so accusing me of deletion is a bit odd. Next, I'd be highly interested in hearing what science credentials Morris has. Could you be more specific? JoshuaZ 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I waste my time listing Morris' vast scientific credentials? It is the person who made the outlandish claim that Morris has none that should be made to back up his/her statement. (by 64.*)

Um, could you help me out here and just list one for me? Thanks. JoshuaZ 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He was a hydraulic engineer. Although that makes him a "scientist", it hardly gives him qualifications in theology, geology or evolutionary biology. — Dunc|☺ 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Dunc, Engineering is not science. JoshuaZ 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of science. In the sense that engineering is applied physics, it science, albeit not research science, based upon the methodological naturalism that the Devil isn't going to come along and knock down your acqueduct for fun. We could also argue whether maths is science or even whether the social sciences are science too if you like. Anywy, list his credentials; people can decide for themselves whether they're relevant. — Dunc|☺ 13:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a debate here, but whether or not Morris had credentials wouldn't make a difference to [[personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] evolutionists. Scorpionman 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it would. Believers in evolution just wish that people who disagree with the theory would admit to generally lacking credentials. If you don't have any qualifications in the field it's important to recognize that. He's no more qualified to discuss geology then he is to do brain surgery. If he has credentials, list them and we'll recant. 155.225.160.108 23:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Keio

[edit] Morris' death - past tense

Since he died, I have modified the article appropriately. Can someone make sure I caught all the tense issues? Thanks. JoshuaZ 06:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How did you find that he died? --Juicy Juicy 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0225morris.asp among other places. JoshuaZ 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel adjectives: creationary/evolutionary

The English adjective "creationary" derives from and refers back to the noun "creation", just as the morphologically parallel adjective "evolutionary" derives from and refers back to the noun "evolution". For all fair-minded individuals, it is no more "controversial", "ugly", "unnecessary", or "verboten" to use the adjective "creationary" than it is to use the parallel adjective "evolutionary". If evolutionary editors of Wikipedia (who are advocates of evolution) insist on forbidding creationary editors of Wikipedia (who are advocates of creation) from using the adjective "creationary", then, to be consistent, they ought also to forbid themselves the use of the parallel adjective "evolutionary" and insist that it be deleted from all Wikipedia articles. What's good for the evolutionary goose is good for the creationary gander. And what's good for the creationary goose is also good for the evolutionary gander.

creation/evolution (nouns)
creational/evolutional (adjectives)
creationary/evolutionary (adjectives)
creationism/evolutionism (nouns)
creationist/evolutionist (nouns)
creationistic/evolutionistic (adjectives) Hans-Friedrich Tamke 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutley not. What is linguistically perfect is not always how people write. Phrases such as "Creation Science" are common and reasonably form compound noun phrases which we should use. The term "creationary science" returns some 400 or so google hits as opposed to 1.5 million with "creation science." heck the word "creationary" returns less than 20,000 hits. And you won't find many uses of "evolutionary" anyways which is also an ugly and uncommon word. JoshuaZ 03:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JoshuaZ. In some instances (such as "evolution vs creationism") the grammatical imbalance is problematic, in this case the language reflects the terminology both sides use most often. "Creation science" has evolved into something more specific (and specifically associated with Morris) than "creationary science" (which presumably would encompass 19th-century creation-oriented science, etc.). As a side note, "evolutionary" may be ugly, but I wouldn't say it's uncommon, particularly when paired with "biology," "biologist," or "theory."--ragesoss 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, yes, more common than "creationary" certainly and actually has standard uses. JoshuaZ 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Google search results:

"evolutionary" = about 107,000,000 -- "creationary" = about 17,300
"evolutionary science" = about 173,000 -- "creationary science" = about 463
"evolutionary sciences" = about 20,700 -- "creationary sciences" = about 4
"evolutionary scientist" = about 17,300 -- "creationary scientist" = about 200
"evolutionary scientists" = about 68,600 -- "creationary scientists" = about 282
"evolutionary biology" = about 17,000,000 -- "creationary biology" = about 67
"evolutionary biologist" = about 373,000 -- "creationary biologist" = about 25
"evolutionary biologists" = about 403,000 -- "creationary biologists" = about 18
"evolutionary evidence" = about 20,400 -- "creationary evidence" = about 71
"evolutionary evidences" = about 333 -- "creationary evidences" = 2
"evolutionary theory" = about 4,560,000 -- "creationary theory" = about 202
"evolutionary theories" = about 284,000 -- "creationary theories" = about 39
"evolutionary theorist" = about 29,400 -- "creationary theorist" = about 34
"evolutionary theorists" = about 52,800 -- "creationary theorists" = about 14
"evolutionary theorizing" = about 22,200 -- "creationary theorizing" = 2
"evolutionary theorising" = about 369 -- "creationary theorising" = 1
"evolutionary theoretician" = about 279 -- "creationary theoretician" = 0
"evolutionary theoreticians" = about 74 -- "creationary theoreticians" = 0
"evolutionary thought" = about 182,000 -- "creationary thought" = about 39
"evolutionary thoughts" = about 502 -- "creationary thoughts" = about 35
"evolutionary thinker" = about 609 -- "creationary thinker" = about 5
"evolutionary thinkers" = about 9,880 -- "creationary thinkers" = about 5
"evolutionary thinking" = about 102,000 -- "creationary thinking" = about 72
"evolutionary agenda" = about 588 -- "creationary agenda" = about 6
"evolutionary agendas" = about 175 -- "creationary agenda" = about 4
"evolutionary propaganda" = about 612 -- "creationary propaganda" = about 6
"evolutionary propagandist" = about 138 -- "creationary propagandist" = about 3
"evolutionary propagandists" = about 279 -- "creationary propagandists" = about 4
"evolutionary perspective" = about 760,000 -- "creationary perspective = about 307
"evolutionary perspectives" = about 139,000 -- "creationary perspectives = about 4
"evolutionary philosophy" = about 37,700 -- "creationary philosophy" = about 23
"evolutionary philosophies" = about 547 -- "creationary philosophies" = about 5
"evolutionary philosopher" = about 606 -- "creationary philosopher" = about 4
"evolutionary philosophers" = about 219 -- "creationary philosophers" = about 4
"evolutionary religion" = about 619 -- "creationary religion" = about 3
"evolutionary religions" = about 619 -- "creationary religions" = about 4
"evolutionary religionist" = about 420 -- "creationary religionist" = 0
"evolutionary religionists" = about about 1,540 -- "creationary religionists" = 0
"evolutionary framework" = about 110,000 -- "creationary framework" = about 22
"evolutionary frameworks" = about 389 -- "creationary frameworks" = about 4
"evolutionary view" = about 111,000 -- "creationary view" = about 159
"evolutionary views" = about 21,500 -- "creationary views" = about 24
"evolutionary viewpoint" = about 25,700 -- "creationary viewpoint" = about 58
"evolutionary viewpoints" = about 302 -- "creationary viewpoint" = about 10
"evolutionary point of view" = about 98,000 -- "creationary point of view" = about 27
"evolutionary points of view" = about 290 -- "creationary points of view" = about 3
"evolutionary genetics" = about 607,000 -- "creationary genetics" = about 17
"evolutionary geneticist" = about 17,900 -- "creationary geneticist" = about 6
"evolutionary geneticists" = about 12,100 -- "creationary geneticists" = about 5
"evolutionary concept" = about 45,800 -- "creationary concept" = about 21
"evolutionary concepts" = about 85,700 -- "creationary concepts" = about 17

The adjective evolutionary is used very frequently by both those people who favor and those who disfavor evolution. Those evolutionary and creationary writers and editors who choose to use the parallel adjective creationary on Wikipedia webpages ought to be free to do so. Hans-Friedrich Tamke 08:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They're not parallel because you're trying to put forward both a false dichotomy and that somehow science (which you call "evolutionary science") and creationist pseudoscience (which you call "creationary science") are somehow equally with merit (within the framework of philosophy of science). You have a rather silly essay on the subject at http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/5985/creation.html — Dunc|☺ 09:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Morris believed that science cannot be used to study God's creative act. Instead, he believed that any evidence of past events must be interpreted through a non-scientific framework. **In his view this limitation applied equally to both evolutionary and creationary positions when attempting to answer the question of ultimate origins.**" (I added the **last sentence** which was later reverted.)

I have selected a quotation from page 233 of "The Creator in the Courtroom" (1982), a book written by philosopher/theologian Norman Geisler that may interest you and stimulate some thought on the difference between origin science and operation science. (I have changed Geisler's wording a bit by adding the parallel adjectives creationary and evolutionary where he used "creationist's" and "evolutionist's". I have also used the words "creation" and "evolution" (competing facts or putative facts) throughout, instead of "creationism" and "evolutionism" (competing ideologies). This is the modified Norman Geisler quote.

- Now in this broad speculative sense of the word "science," a creationary view is just as scientific as an evolutionary view. Unfortunately, what happened in Arkansas was the application of a double-standard. Evolution as a general theory was considered science on a broad definition of "science," and creation was considered unscientific on a narrow definition of science. If the courts are ever to recognize the scientific character of creation, then this kind of "double-dealing" must be avoided, for creation is no less scientific than is evolution. To be fair the courts must either rule both theories in or both out of the science classroom. - (from page 233, "The Creator in the Courtroom", by Norman Geisler.)

Henry M. Morris would have essentially agreed with Norman Geisler's view. Much evolutionary theory is part of origin science, not operation science. This same limitation also applies to creationary theory. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard once claimed: "The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun), though absolute certainty has no place in our lexicon." Stephen Jay Gould's "fact of evolution" claim was an overstatement. The "fact of evolution" or the "putative fact of evolution" is a part of origin science. "The revolution of the earth about the sun" is a part of operation science. These two "facts" are not in the same domain. <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_v8/ai_4665760> Hans-Friedrich Tamke 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the standard creationist apologetics philosophical speculation. This has what to do with how the article stands? Please phrase you answer in terms of wiki guidelines like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:OR etc. JoshuaZ 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Father of "creation science"

fyi, an appropriate Google search;

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22father+of+creation+science%22+AND+%28%22Henry+Morris%22+OR+%22Henry+M.+Morris%22%29&btnG=Search&meta= yields a number of references to the "father of 'creation science'". — Dunc|☺ 19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs section edits

I made some changes to the "Beliefs" section in an attempt to make it more neutral and clarify Morris' view of operational and origins science. Thanks JoshuaZ for correcting me about Elliot Sober and generally wikifying my edit. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I appreciate any help and advice you all may have. Truth Seeker2 22:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Critics

I noticed that this article makes no mention of the answers to these criticisms and i've added a link for those who want to take an objective look at the situation. This is especially the case for the racism article as it's merely nonsense and lies. If any of you have a problem with this or I'm going against the wikipedia rules then please let me know. --Macguysoft 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/n/Talk%7EHenry_M._Morris_9cfd.html"