Talk:Scriptural geologist

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)

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)

AnniaJenkins added the sentence "He also translated six works of Martin Luther, and one each of Calvin and Melanchthon." The sentence is copied straight out of Mortenson's page on Henry Cole. This is why I have argued that AnniaJenkins is yet another sockpuppet of Allenroyboy. As a sockpuppet, anything AnniaJenkins posts here or elsewhere should be reverted per WP:DENY. We don't allow blocked editors to contribute. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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, talk 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Struck more sockpuppet edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)