This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
O'Connor
I've been reading O'Connor work on scriptural geologists and he's got some good points that could be added. However, he treats Mortenson as a reliable source. "The great turning point is a mine of information on seven key literalists and the debates in which they engaged." p 359. After reading the talk archives and the anti-Mortenson views, I don't want to get myself in trouble by using O'Connor and unwittingly including information that might have a basis from Mortenson. So please bear with me...... --AnniaJenkins (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I have added in the last few months has come from non-Mortenson, reliable sources. It seems like there is a Mortenson paranoia here. I don't understand why anyone would be afraid of him? He's just another scholar among thousands. But, I've been trying to be circumspect and avoid anything from him. If I have inadvertently quoted from him, let me know, rather than over reacting and deleting lots of hard won research work. --AnniaJenkins (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Touch of quote-mining in the first paragraph: to continue on p. 359, "The great turning point is a mine of information on seven key literalists and the debates in which they engaged. It is, however, unlikely to receive much positive attention among the community of academic historians of science, because it is intended to serve the purposes of a very different community, the young-earth creationist movement.18 According to the back cover, Mortenson’s aim has been to “open eyes and hearts to the veracity of God’s Word”. He presents the widespread acceptance of old-earth geology by the Victorian church as a “Catastrophic Mistake”19 while displaying literalists as spokesmen for the mainstream view and a shining example to young-earth creationists today. This purpose is as Whiggish as the secular triumphalism of much recent popular-science writing, marring an otherwise thoughtful survey by causing Mortenson to overestimate the geological knowledge of several literalists and to underestimate the exegetical skills and religious commitments of some old-earth geologists." . . dave souza, talk11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]