|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morris -- wacko? or elder stateman? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Schrafinator writes: Henry Morris is a horrible misquoter and sloppy thinker, so I don't have a good opinion of him.Read some of his earlier stuff. He's a real religious wacko that learned to "sound" more scientific later on to try to gain credability. In http://EvC Forum: Honorable Opponents -->EvC Forum: Honorable Opponents We all think that this assertion needs some suport.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You've been away. Welcome back
------------------Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Ned, what about an elder wacko?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Hi, Thanks for the greeting.
I haven't been away, exactly, just extremely busy. I work in that famous MI food shop, remember? AND, it's the holiday season. I'm so tired right now that I can't go to sleep. Anyhow, I'd be happy to elaborate on the elder Morris' tactics. The following is a site which rebuts a piece written by Morris called "What they Say": http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/justmorris.htm Next we have another example of misquoting form a different publication: Quotations and Misquotations I own a copy of Morris' and Parker's "What is Creation Science", and the very first chapter is a long list of out of context quotes of biologists, including one by Futuyama! At the end of the book, there is a FAQ section, and one of the questions on page 304 is, "Isn't it unethical for creationists, in order to support their arguments, to quote evolutionists out of context?" Morris' reply: (emphasis added) "The often repeated charge that creationists use partial quotes or out of context quotes from evolutionists is, at best, an attempt to confuse the issue. Creationists do, indeed, frequently quote from evolutionist literature, finding that the data and interpretations used by evolutionists often provide very effective arguments for creation. With only rare exceptions, however, creationists are always meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context. Evolutionists have apparently searched creationist writings looking for such exceptions and, out of the hundreds or thousands of quotes which have been used, have been able to find only two or three which they have been able to interpret as misleading. Even these, if carefully studied, in full light of their own contexts, will be found to be quite fair and accurate in their representation in their representation of the situation under discussion. On the other hand, evolutionists frequently quote creationist writings badly out of context. The most disconcerting practice of this sort, one that could hardly be anything but deliberate, is to quote a creationist exposition of a Bbblical passage, in a book or article dealing with Biblical creationism, and then to criticize this as an example of the scientific creationism which creationists propose for the public schools. Another frequent example is that of citing creationist expositions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and charging them with ignoring the "open system" question, when they are specifically dealing in context with that very question. In any case, evolutionists much more frequently and more flagrantly quote creationists out of context than creationists do evolutionists. The irony is delicious. Morris spends many pages in the begining of this book quoting scientists out of context, then says in the back of the book that the charge that creationists do what he just spent a chapter doing actually has only happened two or three times. Also, according to Morris, of those two or three times, they actually weren't misquotes at all, but were actually completely accurate! He also accuses evolutionists of being horrible misquoters, yet does not give any specific examples.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
As one interested in HERPS I was taken aback by the picture of cladogram of squamates by
quote:. It seemed that the LIZARD pictures on F's book "EVOLUTION" took the cover day for any thing I could write and thus reduces your ! point period for me at least. If you read my link to WOFRAMSCIENCE in the origin of symmetry thread you can notice that THERE IS NOT EVEN A POSSIBLE DIGIT BIT of room for me to have any "context" but this is something that time and due dilligence can gainsay. You will have to find my other post on that cite about Mendel perhaps to realize that but indeed it is all there!! [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-22-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
We'll wait for someone who wants to defend our statesman and stay on the topic. Who was it who thought he was a credible source in the first place?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Do you actually have some idea of what "stay" on the topic means?? beats me. You likely rather missed the content. It was not said that gould quoting was "off" subject. I will explain back further. I used to only USE this site by reading the topic and discussing within the topic I choose and depending on how the thread went I went whereever the topic sequed into. I tried to say that there IS NO context left so that if S wanted to assert "taste" IT COULD ONLY BE BITTER and Morris would understand this. The inability to see linakage to physics only meant that by claiming Natural Selection was oversold means that one academically avoided creationism as to context that Morris might (Idoubt it) quoted "out of context". I have rarely but by Loudmouth and notable other been quoated in and IN LINE WITH THE THIS topic I sighted that the phrase "out of context" leaves NO PLACE to lexically find any such "context" text. That makes the irony"" bitter not delcious unless one assumes to begin with falsity of religion which Morris DOES NOT hold to. I do not need to "Defend" you all need to learn to read differently if you disagree. The facts will discover you/one who does not.
So IN fact while evolutionism does not depend on words creationism does. When the subject goes polar only C/E dualism remains as"" topic for I have found being called "on topic" to be ambivalent here and THERE IS NO WAY I CAN TELL AHEAD OF TIME WHICH IT IS. Look at MrH in TOP TEN for instance. Do you think this board is ready to split letters that it has a hard enough time to spell?? Why specifically did you start this one? There were plenty of places in the other thread to defend Morris. I already did. I would not object if you did not use "we'll" and simply said I'"ll". Instead you must have meant some "group" and there already is some other place for me to talk that way here. [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I would not object if you did not use "we'll" and simply said I'"ll". Instead you must have meant some "group" and there already is some other place for me to talk that way here.
I agree with your point there. I should not attempt to put words in other people's mouths. The rest I don't understand at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok, Ill leave it at that for now. I can not say for sure but I may not have responded if you said "me" instead of "us". Thanks for the real time response. Best Brad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I got a little off topic in the honourable opponents thread.
On the topic of whether Morris has been misleading about Lyell:
quote: from: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research Not a very serious breach here, but an unnecessary reference to him being a lawyer and leaving out his real claim to fame. (very wrong about what uniformitarianism is/was as well of course) From: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
quote: That one is a deliberate attempt at misleading the reader. That is dishonest in it's intent and clearly so. ------------------Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
The following is something I first posted at the "Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God" topic. It is from pp. 172-173 of the book.
quote: So, in Miller's view, Morris was sincere. Morris just had an all overriding faith that somewhere down the line, the science would turn out to be wrong. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
By hinting that there may be a "breach" are one not *not* recognizing that Morris clearly sees or thinks he sees more modern catastrophists trends as both either "against" or "in response to" Creationist Catastrophism. After I read Morris on this in the Modern Creation Trilogy I realized that a creationist could indeed have been seeing most-some-any of the post tectonic influenced geology in part as induced from creationary geology. I have no means to evaluate how much non-creatioary rock studies are NOT even by any intent linked to creationist influence but the possibility that some non-creationary geology is actually AGAINST creationist geology would mean that conceptually creationist geology has some faculty and not merely a minor critical role in discussions of the horizon of landscapes. It seems to me the *thought* of a "breach" would NOT recognize this documentable possibility.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I replied in the other thread before I saw that this new one was made.
In the intro to The Genesis Flood, Henry Morris states (my paraphrase), "Charles Lyell is called the father of geology, but he wasn't a geologist, but a lawyer. If Lyell could talk about geology without being a geologist, then so can I." It's Morris' justification for writing a book on geology, even though he's not a geologist. I don't have access to a library right this minute, but I'll find the quote next week some time if y'all want me to. It's easy to find, as Morris hadn't corrected it last time I checked, which was about 1995. The quote is in the introduction to the book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
truthlover writes:
quote: But that's just the problem: Lyell was a geologist. Yes, he studied to be a lawyer, but then he gave it up to be a geologist. Or are you saying that a person can be only one thing in his life? Judd Hirsch has his degree in physics...does that mean he's not really an actor? David Robinson has his degree in mathematics...does that mean he's not really a basketball player? Even though he's the only male basketball player to medal in three Olympics for the USA? Morris was simply distorting reality. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
But that's just the problem: Lyell was a geologist. That was my point. Sorry, I guess I thought the people in this thread would have read the other thread and known my point. I was giving an example of Morris lying on purpose. I didn't make the context of what Morris said clear, so my post was just to give the context.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024