Honorable Opponents

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.

This isn't misquoting, but it's an example of Morris' honesty problem. In the preface to "The Genesis Flood," he says that Charles Lyell was not a geologist, but a lawyer. Charles Lyell studied law for his parents sake, but later went back, studied geology, and was a geology professor for the rest of his life. Morris reprinted "The Genesis Flood" with this lie four times despite being publicly corrected about it often.edit: I've been away from this too long...edited to put the right brackets around the quote code[This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-22-2003]

You're killing me. The context was, "Hey, Lyell was not a geologist, but a lawyer, so if Lyell can talk about geology without being a geologist, then so can I."Lyell was a geologist. Morris was corrected, although he probably knew he was lying before he was corrected, and he didn't correct his mistake. A purposely uncorrected mistake is a lie. Morris is a liar. It would stand up in court.

Hmm. Can't say I do. I doubt I have more than one or two friends who would even recognize the name Ken Ham. In our village, evolution vs. a literal Genesis has been a hot topic in the past, and it comes up now and again in the present, but we really don't have anyone who's looked into it much except me. So, all my more technical discussions are on the internet, where I haven't seen Ham spoken positively of, either.I remember mentioning Kent Hovind on the CompuServe religion forum years and years ago, when the internet was somewhat new. I got a surprisingly tender response from the evolutionists. They said, "We think he might not be sane, so we go light on him."