Talk:Henry M. Morris

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henry M. Morris article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Creationism: Young Earth creationism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as High-importance). Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

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

This article is in blatant violation of the Wikipedia neutrality standard. it lack proper citations, balance and information on both the author, his work, and his career. Mohaveobserver (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article on Henry M. Morris doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Regarding a controversial subject, both points of view -- both critics and advocates -- should be presented, not leaving the reader feeling one way or another. Instead, this whole article is only presenting criticisms of Morris from "mainstream" scientists while not presenting commendations from fellow creationist scientists/intelligent design scientists. I'm not sure how to tag this article as disputed, maybe somebody else can do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaynewhite (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree..the Criticism is longer than the actual biography.. The people who edit and write wikis are extremely anti-creationists from what i have seen. This is really nothing new wiki is extremely bias when it addresses this group, and actually seems to advocate anti-Religious sentiments from the topics i read. It placed all religious beginnings in the "mythology" area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.172.189 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While something might be undertaken to restructure the article, I disagree with above comments on neutrality, and would like to invite people to read the article on Neutral point of view Gralgrathor (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes claims like: "From the biblical point of view, this is speculative." Even though such statements are true, they go way beyond just stating what the man has said. The article should just give the facts about his claims, not attempt to evaluate them. Ruben, 15 July 2009

I agree this article is nowhere near NPOV. In discussing Dr. Wheeler's criticism of Morris, the article states "Wheeler cited Morris misunderstanding of science, appeals to religious prejudice, misrepresentation of scientific knowledge, omission of opposing science, double standards in evidence,..." Cited. Not, alleged, or contended, but cited. As if Wheeler's criticisms ought to be assumed true! This sentence also relegates religious views to the status of prejudices.

If this were the only NPOV violation in the article, I'd just fix it. But since the majority of the article is devoted to long-winded criticisms, and the overall tone is that of a hit-job, a more general revamping seems called for. I'm no creationist, but I do think Wikipedia ought to provide information, not opinions.0nullbinary0 (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I add unbiased content that are direct quotes from Henry Morris they get deleted. I guess His view points are not allowed in the article but criticism is allowed. This is not an encyclopedic page but just an editorial expressing peoples opinions.Doc1st (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you have misunderstood what I have said. The quotes are fine, the unbiased part of your edits was your personal comments. I hope that we can work together to make this article come from a neutral, unbiased point of view.

talk) 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So I took your advise and just added the quote without my personal comments. Sadly that was removed too.Doc1st (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring the edit by Doc1st. The article should explain Morris' views, whether we like them or not, not just explain criticisms of his views. Also, the removal of his contributions should have been addressed on the talk page, not just summarily done.0nullbinary0 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article on Henry Morris is nothing but a slander-sheet for those who dislike Morris' views. To call the article an encyclopedic entry is a joke. A more correct term for wikipedia, based on this example, would be Darwin-Pedia, or perhaps Dawkins-Pedia. I call upon the wiki-gods to intervene and restore some sanity to this sorry page. Psltaupo (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any particular issues you have with this page? Be specific. Which passages do you think are problematic? Phiwum (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically "Morris was the primary source for much of the argumentation used by young Earth creationists when rejecting primary ideas in mainstream science, from the expanding universe to plate tectonics to biological evolution to genetics". How is this under the title of achievements? Maybe this sentence is why this article is criticized by people who are not creationists. Did Henry Morris teach against plate tectonics and genetics? Because I understand that to be a false statement. Thank you for considering revising or deleting this sentence. Jkindness (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading disinformation is indeed not an "achievement". I deleted the subtitles "Achievements" and "Criticism" in accordance with

WP:CSECTION

.

Of course Morris opposed plate tectonics and genetics. They contradicted his primitive anti-science worldview, just as most of biology, astronomy, and geology did. I dont think "teach against" are the right word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Phiwum. The exclusively hostile nature of all Opinion Section quotes, by other authors, is not representative of the literature. additions of non-hostile quotes by eminent writers are summarily deleted. Quoted hostile opinions by other authors are often ad hominem (...hopelessly confused)(...silly) and so on.Psltaupo (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psltaupo (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Psltaupo's edit. As far as I know, Michael Ruse has not commented upon Morris, so any addition of his opinion is a violation of our

original research policy. Auntie E. (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The edit Auntie E reverted (above) contained a referenced comment by Michael Ruse, which appeared in an american publication, cited in the references section. Why are referenced items summarily deleted like this, and then their existance denied?Psltaupo (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment above. Henry Morris is the subject of this article, not Michael Ruse, nor the topic "Evolution as a religion." Therefore the comment is not relevant to this page and represents a

synthesis to support Morris' cosmology. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's sourced, unless it specifically mentions Morris, it is not suitable for this article. The existence of your edit was NOT denied, as I commented upon it above. Auntie E. (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dunc, Engineering is not science. JoshuaZ 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Surely then anyone who is not qualified in theology has no right to assert whether or not God exists?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.173.184 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morris' credentials are listed below.

Dr. Henry Madison Morris

B.S. Rice Institute 1939 M.S. Univ of Minnesota 1948 Ph.D. Univ of Minnesota 1950 - Civil Engineering Honorary LLD Bob Jones University 1966 Honorary D.Litt. Liberty University 1989

Member State Hwy. Dept., Texas, 1938-1939 Jr Engr to Asst Engr, Int. Boundary Comm. 1939-1949 Instr, Civil Engineering, Rice Inst. 1942-1946 Instr to Asst. Prof. & Proj. Supv., St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Lab, Univ of Minnesota, 1946-1951 Prof of Civil Engr & head of dept, Southwestern La Inst 1951-1956 Prof Applied Science, Univ of Southern Illinois, 1957 Prof of Civil Engr & head of dept, Va Polytech. Inst. & State Univ., 1957-1970 V.P. Academic Affairs, Christian Heritage College, 1970-1978 Pres., Christian Heritage College 1970-1980 Pres., Inst. for Creation Research, 1980-present

Fellow, AAAS Fellow, Am. Soc. Civil Engineers member AGU (American Geophysical Union)82.38.77.65 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he has no scientific credentials relevant to what he discussed and was a Civil Engineer? So he isn't qualified. And for the above about theology...Well, theology isn't a scientific realm of study with objectively quantifiable terms and study. It's basically complete bullshit. Look at Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for example. Perfectly respected in theology, yet they remain some of the most laughably idiotic bullshit in all philosophy. 155.225.122.253 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How did you find that he died? --Juicy Juicy 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0225morris.asp among other places. JoshuaZ 01:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, yes, more common than "creationary" certainly and actually has standard uses. JoshuaZ 04:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

"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)[reply]

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:OR etc. JoshuaZ 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Say, I read somewhere that Henry Morris was heavily influenced by Dr. Irwin Moon in the 1940s, and Dr. Moon also had a 'Sermons from Science' series, wouldn't that make Dr. Moon the 'father of creation science'? Ans what about

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lenny Flank, who runs a website bashing Darwin-bashers, cited Morris as claiming that evolution was created by Satan -- see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/devil.htm for details.

This might be an interesting comment to add to this article, but though Flank seems to do his homework, I wouldn't think for a second of describing him as an unbiased source. He's one of these types who honestly thinks the USA is heading for a religious fundamentalist dictatorship. (I'm certain there's plenty of religious fundamentalists that *want* to set up a dictatorship, but I think that's well beyond their means.)

Does anyone who is more familiar with the writings of Morris know if Flank's comments on him are accurate? MrG 4.225.214.223 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the claims are correct. I've listened to Morris make claims about evolution being a

talk) 05:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Removed Link to ICR Rebuttals

I removed this link (Rebuttals to the claims of ICR) as it more pertains to the

]

Evolutionist

Does this mean "biologist"? Maybe the article should use the word "biologist", just to be clear that this is who we are talking about. 76.109.150.183 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

talk) 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Claims and Criticisms

The "Claims and Criticism" section is really all about the criticisms. They should be scaled back and integrated into other sections of the article. The article should be aimed at giving someone a general overview of Morris and his significance, not a debunking. It's sufficient to say that more-or-less no scientist in any relevant field takes Morris's scientific claims seriously and leave it at that (with a citation or twelve). SlubGlub (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't remove things on that basis. Importantly, the issue here is

WP:UNDUE

. Also, besides an introduction to basic science on evolution, that section reflects specific criticism os specific books, which is completely needed in an encyclo. article.

There are 7 paragraphs in that section which are as follows: 1) Deals with an overview of his work and general remarks, 2) is about his book Scientific Creationism (1974 and 1984), 3) his book Evolution & the Modern Christian (1967), 4) his book The Genesis Flood, 5) his book The Long War Against God (1989), 6) his remarks on racism and evolution, and 7) his work/creation of Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. I think it is structured well. Tgreach (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven paragraphs of criticism of Morris and not a word on the cultural impact of The Genesis Flood does not conform to

WP:NNC. All that needs to be said is that Morris's views on evolution are rejected by nearly every practicing scientist in relevant fields. Add some citations to such a statement (which can be culled from the current material), and you've pretty much conveyed to any fair-minded reader that his views are not worthy of serious consideration. SlubGlub (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So merge or put the The Genesis Flood article up for afd. I agree it needs more context, but descriptionsof works that are in libraries around the world is relevant to the article. The Michael Shermer article has a similiar break down of his books/ideas. The issue isn't whether is ideas are crazy (which they are: ie "evolutionism is satanic"), but what he claims in his books and the reception of scientists. There is no problem discussing particular ideas in his books and criticisms of it. Tgreach (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an article about Henry M. Morris, why not more about who his family is/was? Does he have only one son or two (or more); daughters?

Also, the SDA connection is curious because Genesis 1 depicts God giving homo sapiens a vegan diet, yet there's no evidence that Henry M. Morris or any of his followers realized the implications of God's Original Design as vegan being anything 'for today', although a great many reformers and great Christian leaders WERE vegetarian (Charles Wesley, the hymnwriter, rumors of Martin Luther, et al), and a presence of fundamentalist Baptists in the modern vegetarian (vegan) discussion (Hallelujah Acres, etc., Dr. George Malkmus).

Also, the scholarly question of 'selective Creationism' or 'selective Biblical Creationism' (i.e. being 'creationist' to the extent that one understands or values the implications, but ignoring other implications). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to note that Charles Darwin ALSO was a vegetarian, though in America, the humane movement in the Evangelical Churches paralleled the rediscovery of the material world through the sciences, the rise of New England transcendentalism, the food reform movement, the incoming of better translations of the religious scriptures of the other peoples of the world (an intellectual source of New England 'Transcendentalism' and Unitarianism, and the Underground Railroad and the Civil War - and the Evangelical Churches' role in the success of that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Genesis 1 depicts God giving homo sapiens a vegan diet". Yep, although I'm not sure it's exactly vegan. Not many people know that. Not that it reallt matters. A bit later on, by the way, God gives homo sapiens a meat diet (at the end of the Noah story). Not many people know that, either. MacDonald's, doing the Lord's will. PiCo (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so far from a NPOV that its continued existence tells people that Wikipedia approves contempt for Christian perspectives. 76.6.69.190 (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, rather than just making vague attacks and broad assumptions for the sake of your own vanity, you could propose some specific changes, additions, or deletions. 174.53.187.179 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my edits to this article reverted? From my perspective, these were common sense edits that improved the quality of this article.

The "Criticism" section violates

, as it takes up an inappropriately large amount of article space. This article is supposed to be about Henry Morris and his beliefs, not about the criticism of his beliefs. I have no problem with having a criticism section, but having one so large and expansive, I think, is unnecessary - even if it is in the article of a prominent creationist.

Additionally, there is some wording in this article that violate

. I will soon proceed to fix that wording.

As for the intro section, it appears that many editors, for whatever reason, have an urge to declare Evolution to be an undisputed fact. This article's intro already states that creationism is rejected by the scientific community and the general public. What more do you want? Edits like that are simply a sneaky attempt at affirming their own views and passing judgments on this subject. This should not be done, no matter how widely Evolution is accepted. I have already, with the help of other editors, fixed this on the Answers in Genesis article.

Please be objective, even when editing an article such as this. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a "undisputed fact" (at least to the extent that this article says it is. So why is that a problem? Guettarda (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for

WP:UNDUE - yes, we shouldn't have a criticism section. Morris' ideas should be discussed in context, not presented and then refuted separately. That's just bad writing. But no, I don't see why random bits of the explanation of them should be removed. In fact, the best secondary and tertiary sources about Morris are the ones that criticise his claims. Guettarda (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is supposed to be about Morris and his beliefs, not whether those beliefs are correct or not. Evolution may be a "undisputed fact", but that doesn't mean we must mention it here, especially in the intro paragraph. Wikipedia is not the place for passing judgments, no matter how popular or accepted they are. Am I wrong?

Also, I have no problem with having criticism of Morris on this article, however I dislike the fact that such a large amount of this article is reserved for criticism. Is there any way we can condense this section? I don't think I have seen a section so expansive on any other article. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't actually be a separate section for criticism. There should be a Reception section -- which would neutrally describe how Morris' thought has been received by the world at large. All of the material currently in the Criticism appears to be well-sourced and relevant and can remain. I have added a header for reception; the achievements and criticism subsections can be merged together. — goethean 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone upload an image of Henry Morris to this article? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should Morris really be listed as being a member of the King James Only movement? It is true that the King James Version was his favorite translation, but I don't think he ever said/thought that no other translation should be used, and he certainly did not think that the KJV was a perfect translation [5]. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry M. Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20080229030534/http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/wb/xp-43221 to http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/wb/xp-43221
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910084526/https://store.creationontheweb.com/common/productpdfs/10-3-017.pdf to https://store.creationontheweb.com/common/productpdfs/10-3-017.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry M. Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905083619/http://store.icr.org/Free-Printable-Tracts/products/25/ to http://store.icr.org/Free-Printable-Tracts/products/25/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry M. Morris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305163434/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/morrish.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]