I am curious to know how individuals view a creationist like Phillip Johnson, or Henry Morris. In my opinion these are two of the more respected, widely known creationists.
I don't appreciate either man, and I've read both. Philip Johnson, in my opinion, talks like a lawyer (and is one, of course) and is well aware that he's twisting things. Henry Morris has been publicly corrected so much that he's either has not a shred of honesty or he's a lunatic.
I like Hugh Ross, but he's an old earther. There's also, uh, is it Walter Brown? I don't agree with him, but he's trying hard.
And, believe it or not, I like Ken Ham. He's right up front with saying that his whole belief system is based on Genesis One, and he's going to stick with it no matter what the evidence. Then he fights for it. I could never live like that, holding on to something like that in the face of obvious evidence against it, but, hey, in my opinion, he's the most up front about what he's doing--waging a war based on his very narrow interpretation of Genesis One.