Talk:Scriptural geologist

Mortenson's PhD thesis

So far this stub depends primarily upon Mortenson's PhD thesis. Trabucogold (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A 58K page is a stub? As far as I can tell, at least half of the article is his thesis, "British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century", with some stuff left out, and an occasional word changed. It's probably too close as far as copyright infringement goes. Hairhorn (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is highly edited. (the original thesis was 550 pp.) But I am willing to edit and rewrite further. Trabucogold (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't what's missing, but what's retained. Much of it is verbatim or too close to be considered original text. Hairhorn (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm willing to rewrite it to avoid copyright problems. The purpose here was to set down clearly the main points first and then rewrite for encyclopedic format. That's why I called it a stub. Trabucogold (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing and rewriting for several hours now! I NEED A BREAK!!! Trabucogold (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If the source for the majority of this is Mortenson's PhD thesis then (i) it must be cited to it & (ii) it probably doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Also, according to Google Books this thesis was 1000-odd pages long -- so page number for citations will be necessary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.... I just get tired of editors who think they know stuff and are extremely biased. This is especially so when it comes to creationism and evolutionism controversy. Rather than editing, WP policies are twisted and perverted to censor anything that doesn't fit with their thinking. It all looks so correct. In religious circles they'd be called pious, with a big righteous front, but kniving behind closed doors. It is so obvious........ Trabucogold (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of it was copyvio from [1], his book The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology, and his stuff on Answersingenesis. I've restored the article as a bare stub. It isn't a matter of rewriting someone else's work. There are other sources also besides Mortenson. Paraphrasing just isn't enough in any case. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest redirecting it to Flood geology if no reliable sources (i.e. not "extremist" sources such as Mortenson & AiG) can be found giving it "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The thesis is a valid PhD thesis from a valid university ("Mortenson, T, 1996, British Scriptural Geologists In The First Half Of The Nineteenth Century, Coventry University, Oxford, 508 pages"). It is 3rd party analysis of publications by Scriptural geologists. To say "anything by Mortenson is extremist" impugns the university and his PhD advisers that gave him that degree. What degree is held by the persons making this assertion, that allows them the right to call into question the judgment of tenured PhD professors and second guess what is or is not allowable as a valid PhD thesis? And, what is this about personal attacks? Saying "anything by mortenson is extremist" is a personal attack. It's OK if someone else does it? And, as I said elsewhere, part of the thesis was rewritten for publication by Master Books and parts of that are on AiG. So what? That is irrelevant. Trabucogold (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA to learn what is meant by a personal attack. I doubt that you can use an unpublished thesis as a source, extreme, mild, or whatever. I'm reserving judgement on anything else by him, but there are other sources out there, why not use them? eg "scriptural+geologists"&source=bl&ots=br0B4ZbSUU&sig=fw0R2vQbRn9L5al0AvTEpYzxLPA&hl=en&ei=RPOOSvbiG-DTjAeugqzcDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15#v=onepage&q=%22scriptural%20geologists%22&f=false - just search on "scriptural geologists". But you may not get far just using the web. Coventry University has nothing to do with and is not in Oxford. It's a real university, but not exactly impressive for geology or history. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly should be in no way an edited version of anyone's work. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a published thesis, just as are ALL thesis are. Published by the University. It is available by inter-library loan just like all other thesis are. There is nothing different about this thesis than any other thesis that has ever been published. the Thesis was done at Coventry University in collaboration with Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. I'll correct that in the reference. The PhD was in the History of Geology, which is distinct from degrees in geology. Trabucogold (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch to say that a thesis is "published", but I have to agree that there's nothing particularly unreliable about them. Academic theses, by their very nature, are peer-reviewed documents, and held to a very high standard of research. Hairhorn (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell these guys that Theses are not published. http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/ Trabucogold (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

UMI prints stuff on demand. I suppose you can call that publishing if you want to. Hairhorn (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"All PhD and DMA thesis option students, whether they are submitting an electronic or printed thesis, as well as DMA essay and master's students who are submitting an ETD, may choose either Open Access or Traditional Publishing. If you elect Open Access Publishing, a one-time fee of either $160 (doctoral candidates) or $150 (master's candidates) will be billed to your account at the time you make final deposit. This is in addition to the fees that are already billed to your account at the time you make first deposit: thesis fee ($145) and publication fee ($75, PhD and DMA thesis; $65, DMA essay and master's thesis, ETD only)." from: http://www.grad.uiowa.edu/theses-and-dissertations/thesis-publishing-proquest-contract.

The very fact that I have to point this out PROVES that none of you have EVER submitted a MS or a PhD thesis and thereby completely disqualifies any of you as valid editors on this topic. None of you have anywhere near the equivalent education as Mortenson... Did any of you even finish college??? Trabucogold (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I agreed with you that theses were reliable sources, so, I dunno, pick your battles and please try to be civil. Second of all, thank you very much, I have myself signed the UMI form, although I signed mine back when dinosaurs walked the earth. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of Master's theses now that I think about it, we did have a debate about them. But I remain of the opinion that even a PhD thesis needs citing in other articles before it should be used, there are some pretty bad ones out there, believe me. Speaking as someone without a PhD but with enough degrees and background to have have been on professorial appointment panels. Trabucogold, I've put a warning on your talk page for personal attacks, please stop these. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note that the university bestowing the degree, Coventry University, is hardly prestigious -- ranked 74th-84th (out of 114/113). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford that the university was "in collaboration with" in conferring the degree is a theological college -- an interesting choice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Prestigious" is irrelevant. The "theological college," being part of Oxford, is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Again you are trying to smear the source with any invention you can think of to try to censor this information. Trabucogold (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This article looks fun. I always thought many of the early 19th Century geologists were Christians who went out into the fields to find evidence of Noah's flood. They came back scratching their heads as they found no evidence but were honest enough to say so instead of creating a pseudoscience. Ive said my peace, I have better things to do than try to reason with people who want to deny reality. --Another berean (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect these scriptural geologists were all armchair geologists.--Another berean (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyell quotes

The quotes from Charles Lyell appear to have been lifted from this AiG piece by Mortenson. Per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources it is not a reliable source (even if it were cited). We appear to have no reliable confirmation as to who exactly it was Lyell was referring to, so I've requested a quote to give the full context for these quotations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk ^(P) 06:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The source for this is the PhD thesis. Get the thesis and you would know.... The thesis is a reliable source that passed peer review. If the sources had not been quoted correctly it would not have passed peer review and he would not have gotten his PhD. It is irrelevant that the thesis was later republished and quoted by AiG. Your continual smearing of the article with fringe is a blatant, obvious, attempt to censor the information by twisting WP policy. Trabucogold (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The source that you cite for it in the article is not "the PhD thesis", but Lyell himself. In any case, an extremist's PhD thesis from a third-rate university is at best a questionable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford will not work in collaboration with another university unless that university hold to the same scholarly standards as Oxford. And Oxford's "theological" hall must hold to the very same scholarly standards as all the rest of Oxford's schools. You are smearing the reputation of these scholarly institutions simply because they conferred a PhD upon Mortenson because he is a creationist. But the fact is that Mortenson got a valid PhD from a reputable secular university. He was held to the very same standards as any other PhD candidate. His paper was reviewed and highly criticized by his review board of professors who were NOT SYMPATHETIC with his creationary views. Creationism in the scholarly world of England is held at even greater contempt than in America. He simply could not have gotten his PhD by quoting or referring to sources out of context. The claims that the work is sloppy, extremist and questionable, are based solely on Mortenson's belief in creationism and not on any evidence from the thesis. The fact that you are second guessing the scholars who reviewed and passed the thesis, implies that you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable and more wise than these tenured professors. Upon what scholarly basis can you claim this? If this thesis had been written by an evolutionist there would have never been any question to its validity. This thesis will be quoted from and form the basis for parts of the article. Any deletions not based on facts and evidence but simply because Mortenson is a creationist will be reversed. Trabucogold (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(i) You provide no substantiation whatsoever as to the circumstances of Mortenson's PhD, so your assertions have no evidentiary value. (ii) "creationary" is not a word recognised in any dictionary -- please don't use made up jargon. (iii) "evolutionist" is generally considered a pejorative term for the legitimate scientific community -- using it simply demonstrates your creationist bias. (iv) Mortenson's affiliation with the AiG apologetics ministry clearly makes him an extremist source. WP rarely accepts creationists as RS for anything beyond their own beliefs. In any case, we have numerous sources that are both more prominent and more reliable than Mortenson -- so no need whatsoever to include him in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• (i) You have no evidence that Coventry U in collaboration with Oxford conveys PhDs that are scholarly inferior to other PhDs. But, for the fact that they gave a hated creationist a PhD. So they must be giving out inferior PhDs. (Uuuuh-huh)

• (ii) Creationary is a perfectly valid adjective, no different that evolutionary. I will always be using it where an adjective is needed rather than being grammatically inept bending a noun into use as an adjective. Dictionaries have words in them because they are used. Words are not used because they are in a dictionary. New words are added to dictionaries because they are used. And just because a word isn't in the dictionary does not mean it is not a valid word. (Ain't it so?)

• (iii) An evolutionist, a noun, is simply a person who accepts and promotes the theory/fact of evolution. It is no more pejorative than naturalist, novelist, violinist, theorist, or even creationist. What's in your mind that would make it pejorative?????

• (iv) Mortenson's affiliation with AiG is completely irrelevant to his PhD thesis which was conferred by a reputable secular educational institution. And, besides, it was acquired many years before Mortenson became associated with AiG. I will never accept your extremely bias, bigoted and prejudiced opinion on this. I will only bow to an administrator who has NO VESTED INTEREST IN THE CREATIONISM/EVOLUTIONISM TOPIC concerning the reliability of the Thesis as a source. If this were any other topic, this would be a moot point.

• (v) Mortenson extensively quotes from all the other "more prominent" and "more reliable" sources that were published before his 1996 thesis. But of course, they are 'more promenant' and 'more reliable' because they were written by evolutionists and not fringe, extremist, nut-case, Bible-thumping, mind-missing, leg-draggin creationists. (Riiiight! That's the ticket!) Trabucogold (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the Andrew White quotes are lifted from the same source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom is available online. It attributes the quotes to "the orthodox party" and makes no mention of "scriptural geologists". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

here is the quote: "About half a century since, the Rev. J. Mellor Brown, the Rev. Henry Cole, and others were hurling at all geologists alike, and especially at such Christian scholars as Dr. Buckland and Dean Conybeare and Pye Smith and Prof. Sedgwick, the epithets of "infidel," "impugner of the sacred record," and "assailant of the volume of God."[147] The favourite weapon of the orthodox party was the charge that the geologists were "attacking the truth of God." They declared geology "not a subject of lawful inquiry," denouncing it as "a dark art," as "dangerous and disreputable," as "a forbidden province," as "infernal artillery," and as "an awful evasion of the testimony of revelation."[148]"

[[147] For these citations, see Lyell, Principles of Geology, introduction.

[[148] See Pye Smith, D. D., Geology and Scripture, pp. 156, 157, 168, 169." See chapter 5 in on-line book.

Brown and Cole were scriptural geologists! It helps to know who were scriptural geologists. They were listed in the original article which got deleted... Smith equates orthodox party with Brown and Cole not Buckland, etc. Trabucogold (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Brown and Cole were scriptural geologists!" Says Mortenson, NOT White. Your statement is therefore, at best WP:Synthesis. Especially as White leaves vague who, apart from Brown and Cole, he considers to be "the orthodox party" -- he could easily have meant a grouping similar to, but not identical to, Mortenson's "scriptural geologists". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the WP:SYNTH involved, the fact that White was not a contemporary, and is an outdated largely discredited source these days, I'm removing the quotes cited to him. Given that we have have an authoritative opinion (Martin J. S. Rudwick) that the scientific geological community as a whole, at the time, did not take 'scriptural geologists' the least bit seriously, the whole 'Critics of Scriptural Geologists' (what's left of it) would appear to be redundant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS/N

I have referred the question of the reliability of Mortenson's thesis to WP:RSN#Suspect PhD thesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

A proposal has been made to merge this article with Young Earth creationism.

• I would like to oppose this merger, as I feel that, now that I have done some research into the matter, sufficient (and "significant") reliable third party coverage exists to merit a separate article. This is true even from sources available online (see the 'Notes' & 'References' section -- particularly Livingston et al, which includes a full chapter on the subject), let alone from those less easily available (see 'Further reading'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: as the article is now 1/6 the size of Young Earth creationism, has numerous in-depth scholarly sources, and no supporting opinions have been made, can we close this merger proposal? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fairholme

"Like the other leaders of his party, FAIRHOLME was by no means ignorant of the science he assailed; he was even capable of acknowledging LYELL'S superiority to earlier theorists so long as only secondary causes were considered." pg 73 Trabucogold (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why some sources claim that the scriptural geologists were geologically incompetent and other sources claim that they knew geology is that some Scriptural geologists were geological inempt and some were scholars. What has happened is that all Scriptural geolgoists have been painted by the same brush, when in fact they were not all the same. Mortenson points this out based on evidence and quotes, and it was in the original article I posted. There really needs to be a paragraph that explains why the wide differences of opinion and eliminate this ambiguity. Trabucogold (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The following is Mortenson analysis of the wide rage of opinions.

"Scriptural geologists ... was the most common label used by contemporaries and later historians. However, we need to be aware of the label's liabilities. It has not always been used carefully, resulting in confusion and inaccurate analysis. Calling them Scriptural geologists obscures the fact that some of them were competent geologists and some were not (and did not claim to be). Conversely, it sometimes is and was used by opponents to imply, erroneously, that these men all developed their objections to old-earth geological theories solely on the basis of Scripture. Also, at least one of their contemporary critics, an old-earth geologist, also described himself by the same title. Finally, a few contemporary critics and several later historians have lumped Scriptural geologists together with their [catastrophist] opponents under this label. So it is necessary to have a clear view of what they believed." pg 1-2

Given that Mortenson has been found by WP:RSN to not be a reliable source, and has been repeatedly described in the literature as being overly sympathetic towards the SG's, I've got very little interest in his opinion. I would be more interested in a wider (i.e. full paragraph at least) quote of what Millhau'sser had to say, to give context to the snippet above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, no matter how reasonable, or logical, or knowledgeable a creationist may be, because he is a creationist he is a shit head. Trabucogold (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The standard that WP:RSN seems to set is publication in a reputable journal -- a standard that creationists very rarely meet. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The standard of reputable journal is a find standard, but when a creationist publishes in a journal that journal suddenly becomes sub-standard because it allowed a creationist to publish. And a PhD thesis is fine as sources for thousands of WP articles, yet a creationist's PhD is automatically suspect and disallowed simply because the recipiant is a creationist. I know you will deny this, but it is reality. Trabucogold (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the fun of it I thought I'd check to see how many WP pages have reliable sources. I used the "random article" button above and retrieved 100 articles (not counting disambiuation pages). 43 articles had NO references at all. Of the 57 articles that had references 33 of them were HTML references ONLY! Only 24 of all the pages had reliable sources! In other words, only 25% of all of WP articles may be reliable! And about 75% are most likely pure OR! Check it out, pull up 100 or more articles yourself and do a talley. And we have the ridiculous arguments over whether PhDs are reliable sources in a WP where 75% of its articles are s..t. Trabucogold (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please feel free to correct the deficiencies on as many articles as you feel inclined to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"But the classical statement of this position was the work of GEORGE BUGG, who gave the term "Scriptural Geology" a sort of authority by using it as the title of a well--known book. Appalled at the insolence of the geologists--"Was ever the 'word of God' laid so deplorably prostrate at the feet of an infant and precocious science !"--BUGG tilts directly against their greatest leaders; he is harsh with SUMNER, and outraged by BUCKLAND; the temper of the work is such that one is not surprised to find him distinguishing between CUVIER and Christian writers. He is sharper and more absolute in tone than PENN or KIDD. Fearing that geology will impugn the authority of the Fourth Commandment and subvert the argument from design, he rejects every system of reconciliation thus far proposed, denies that any fossils represent extinct species, and insists that predatory animals were herbivorous before ADAM'S sin. This is supported by such show of argument as is consistent with the rejection of secondary causes in favor of miracle; but the underlying tone is an angry fear. "Might not, then, even a Sunday school-boy inquire, 'how could this invention of the six days Creation arise? Was it a forgery of priests and kings to keep their people in awe and subjection ?' ... Geology is the last subject to which the adversaries of Revelation have resorted... And no doubt when the subject should have become sufficiently general and adequately rooted, they would (could they not have been resisted,) have turned our Geology against our Bible, and made us pay dearly for our unwise confidence and easy credulity". Trabucogold (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"For a brief period, while here and there the catastrophist geology persisted in favor, this "Scriptural" position could be offered as merely a conservative choice of doctrine, tenable on scientific grounds. But then, between I830 and I833, LYELL destroyed definitively the whole system of assumptions on which it had relied. At the same time, public interest in geology and awareness of its implications was appreciably heightened--in part by the work of the theological disputants themselves. An increasing number of introductory texts and popular lectures, and in particular the work of such conscientious teachers as BUCKLAND and SEDGWICK, fed the new appetite; the subject was well on its way toward the position it was to occupy during much of the Victorian era, as a sort of hobby among educated laymen. It was, naturally, the new geology that was thus "taken up." The realization that science was no longer on their side, however, and that educated opinion was slipping rapidly away, merely intensified the zeal of the Scriptural Geologists. If the period from 1815 to 1830 represents the incubation of the movement, that from 1830 to perhaps I844--the Principles of Geology to Vestiges of Creation-- marks its intensest and most significant activity.

"Its first major text to be prepared with reference to LYELL was GEORGE FAIRHOLME'S General View of the Geology of Scripture (14) Vol. II, pp. 341 and 355. Like the other leaders of his party, FAIRHOLME was by no means ignorant of the science he assailed; he was even capable of acknowledging LYELL'S superiority to earlier theorists so long as only secondary causes were considered. But LYELL, like HUTTON and even WERNER, had departed from Sacred History, and was therefore wrong. All "speculative" geology--which is to say, everything since about the middle of the eighteenth century--is inherently anti-Scriptural; "misled by the theories of the earth set forth by the Continental philosophy and infidelity," it is tainted by propinquity to the madness of BUFFON and the wicked errors of LAMARCK. Yet "even some of the most learned divines, without any knowledge of Geology, have considered themselves bound, in translating and explaining the sacred record, to submit to the dictates of philosophy, and... have thus unintentionally aided the cause of scepticism and disbelief." This was the first of a little spate of such works." Millhauser, pgs 72-73.

Don't look now, but again, in the first line Millhauser uses the words: "catastrophist geology" Egad! What heresy! Castigate him! He must be a leg-draggin creationist!!!!

"Castigate him!" <blinks> Why? His use of the adjective appears to be entirely clear and unexceptional -- unlike your own murky employment of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

the point is the word catastrophist geology and what was being discussed below, i.e. all the science [geology] -- catastrophist and uniformitarian -- .... Trabucogold (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's two words. And it makes sense in the context, as it is contrasting catastrophist versus uniformitarian. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There were 3 different groups back then (just as there is today): 1) Uniformitarians (Hutton, Lyell, etc.) who rejected the Bible completely, 2) Catastrophists (Cuvier, Buckland, Conybeare, Sedgwick, etc.) who rejected the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood and 3) Scriptural Geologists who accepted the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood. Millhauser was not contrasting Catastrophists and Uniformitarians. He was including the geology of Catastrophists with the geology of the Uniformitarins against the Scriptural Geologists. You will find Millhauser's article to be much clearer when you realize he is talking about this 3 fold partition.

Today the 3 fold division is: 1) Evolutionary Naturalists who reject the Bible. 2) Theistic Evolutionists who reject the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood, and 3) Young Earth Creationists (and related groups) who accept the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood. Both the Evolutionary Naturalists and Theistic Evolutionists are enemies of the Young Earth Creationists. Things haven't changed much in 170 years. Trabucogold (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do you think "his [Fairholme's] party" could be scriptural geologists? Naahh. That's too easy. Must be something more obtuse, like, his tupperware party or, or, or, his political party. Yeah! That's the ticket! Trabucogold (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The operative word is "could", which means that this is WP:OR. What we need is context. In this case we need to know what the "it" was in "Its first major text" -- and so probably need the preceding paragraph. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other problems

The article needs to explain:

• What "archaic diluvial catastrophism" means
• What "Lucretian materialism" is.
• What types of geology aren't "catastrophist as well as uniformitarian geology" (the two appearing to be collectively exhaustive).

Additional concerns:

• Given that we've already got a couple of sources on the SG's geological incompetence, I would like quotes from Millhauser on their alleged competence.
• Why the obsession over their rants against Buckland?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Abt "cat and uni geol." "Although too neat a generalization would be erroneous, the arguments of one generation of purely theological disputants more or less reflected the interpretation of the obstructionist side in the discussion among scientists of the proceeding generation. Granville Penn, for example, Dean Cockburn of York, and George Fairholme, to name three of the opponents of geology in Buckland's time leveled against the whole of the science -- catastrophist as well as uniformitarian -- arguments very similar to those with which Deluc and Kirwan had attacked the Huttonians Twenty-five years earlier." 223-224 Gillispe 1996 "the science" = "geology" previous in sentence.

Buckland was a major theologian and geologist who they felt had abandonded the Bible and God. He was the major influence in creationism at the time.

I believe that "Arc Dil Cat" was simply the view of creationism that had been held by Christian believers for centuries. This would be archaic as opposed to 'modern' diluvialist catastrophism. I don't know what "Lucretian" is but the author apparently felt it was important.... perhaps it could be left out... Trabucogold (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

About Penn's knowledge, (from Millhauser) "Their first important leader was GRANVILLE PENN, a scholar of some competence, who had studied geology and had come to suspect it of a tendency toward Lucretian materialism. He therefore devoted himself to the task of arguing against its theories from its facts." p. 71 Mortenson didn't make it up. I didn't make it up. Trabucogold (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• "catastrophist as well as uniformitarian geology" -- the important part of the quote is "the whole of the science" -- i.e "the whole of [geology]"

Gillispe includes in "The whole of [geology]" both catastrophist and uniformitarian geology. What Gillispe said is in the article. Trabucogold (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• "archaic diluvial catastrophism" -- if you don't understand what the author means, then you should not include it.
• Buckland -- you should not insert repeated mentions of him without explaining (from a RS) what he meant to the SGs
• You still haven't explained "Lucretian materialism"
• You still haven't given the quote from Millhauser on their alleged competence supporting "Like other Scriptural geologists, Fairholme was not ignorant of geology."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

for the quote from Millhauser look at the section above.

There is a WP page on Buckland (linked to in the article) which explains his importance in Theology and geology of his age. Trabucogold (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not explain his significance to the SGs specifically. Plus you don't include the Buckland link until the very bottom of the section.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That probably needs a paragraph on it's own. All the literature I read emphasizes this conflict with Buckland. I believe that they felt that he betrayed Christianity and them. I'll see if something can be put together from the one's I have. Trabucogold (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will also note that what Millhauser is saying is not that "Fairholme … Penn and Cockburn [were] opponent[s] of catastrophist as well as uniformitarian geology" but that they "leveled against the whole of the science … arguments very similar to those with which Deluc and Kirwan had attacked the Huttonians Twenty-five years earlier." I'm therefore removing this distorted phrasing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Millhouser's sentence clearly makes two points. 1) "the opponents of geology ... leveled against the whole of the science" THE science is clearly geology, there is no other logical way to read this sentence. So the sentence clearly means "the opponents of geology ... leveled against the whole of [geology]." Millhouser obviously used "the science" to keep from repeating the same word over and over. 2) "the whole of the science -- catastrophist as well as uniformitarian --" Here Millhouser is clarifying what he meant by the whole of the science [geology], i.e. both catastrophist as well as uniformitarian. In other words Millhouser is obviously talking about "both the catastrophist as well as the uniformitarian sciences of [geology]..." This may not fit what you have thought before, but nevertheless Millhouser calls catastrophism a geology. And for you to not include that in the article is personal preference OR. What is important is what Millhouser actually said, not what he "should" have said. Trabucogold (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are Scriptural Geologist and who arn't

The article lists a bunch of names, but it isn't clear who's who. The list of promenant SGs may be correct, but all the others who are named ought to be listed to make it clear. And it might be good to define what is meant by competent geologist in the 1800's. I understand Rudwick has a 3 class system.... Trabucogold (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to remove the list (i) because it had become a mess ("an indiscriminate collection of information") & (ii) because WP policy is to prefer prose over lists where possible.

If you insist that some sort of list is necessary, then doing it as a Bibliography of SG works section probably makes the most sense -- that way it (i) serves a purpose other than just as a list & (ii) reduces the probability of it getting loaded up with poorly-connected "miscellaneous information" aka WP:TRIVIA. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Millhauser's view of the split in Christianity over origins

Millhauser starts by describing the typical understanding of geology by Christians in Britain: "Until the last decades of the eighteenth century, British geology, even more than continental, had been theologically oriented; its basic postulates had been derived from Scripture, and its chief concern had been to explain fossils, strata, and topography in terms of the Six Days of Creation and the Noachian Flood. The result was the widely accepted "cataclysmic" system: detailed, coherent, adequate to all early observation, and in absolute harmony with every major form of Christian faith." p67

The rise of a new group was initiated by a theologian. T. Chalmers, when faced with Huttons ideas, was the first (abt 1805) to proposed a compromise that is now known as the gap theory. "Reduced to its simplest terms, CHALMERS' position was that the early verses of Genesis record not one Creation but two; and the aeons of geology fall between. ... indeed there may have been an "interval" between the primal Creation and the Six Day's work-then there is time in Scripture for all of geologic history." p68 "CHALMERS' suggestion was favorably received by theological liberals, and encouraged the rise of a more or less self-conscious party of "reconciliation." Its prestige was such that the "interval" theory presently became almost the official British rival to the continental one that interpreted the Six Days as six creative eras." p.69

The second group, the Scriptural Geologists, held to the original views of Christians toward Genesis. They became the conservative voice in contrast to the new idea intrduced by Chalmers and supported by Buckland and others.

"With the progress of geology during the twenties, the issue was debated more and more sharply. ... By the middle of the decade, a distinct school of "Scriptural Geologists," hostile to modern science and any form of intellectual compromise, had sprung into contentious being. Distressed by HUTTON, and sometimes uneasily aware of LAMARCK, the "Scriptural" group ranged a considerable body of British public opinion solidly around a single master principle: Scripture is geology." p. 71

So there were two positions in the Christian camp. And with the uniformitarians, that made 3 groups vying for acceptance. Trabucogold (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An additional note based on some reading i've done. Most of the Catastrophists, eventually, by the middle of the 1800s, abandoned catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism. Some of them also abandoned a variety of pseudo-creation accounts in favor of evolution. By about the 1840s scriptural geologists had died off or quit publishing. But, the ideas they represented were held by a variety of conservative religious groups and were again brought to the attention of the public by Price, influenced by Ellen White, in the early 1900s. Morris and Whitcom, borrowing extensively from Price, published a very influential book in 1960 which affected the Baptists first and then the many Evangelical churches. Today the YECs point to the Scriptural geologists as a part of their history. The philosophical descendants of the former catastrophists are known today as Theistic Evolutionists. Trabucogold (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But nobody will believe you. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of this is already in WP: in articles such as Gap creationism and George McCready Price, as well as in the note here in the 'Reason for appearance' section noting that the first wave of SGs was evoked by 'gap theory'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention. It is often claimed that the abandonment of Catastrophism by Buckland and the others, is evidence that Creationism was proven false by the evidence of geology and that it died with the Catastrophists change to uniformitarianism. However, it appears to me that the ideas of the scriptural geologists simply found no further advocate until Price. The lack of knowledge about the scriptural geologists and what they believe and advocated has resulted in a distorted view of the history of creationism. Even Numbers got it wrong, by not knowing about the scriptural geologists. He starts his book in the 1850s, after the last of the publications by the scriptural geologists. And he promotes the idea that Ellen White is the ultimate source for modern creationism. However, Mortenson proves that all the elements of creationism promoted by Price and modern YECs had already been discussed and believed by the scriptural geologists. Trabucogold (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. While the SGs and Price had similar views, there appears to be no evidence that the former influenced the latter, and so no reason for Numbers to include the former in his description of the latter and the latter's direct intellectual heirs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

reasons for differences of opinion

So it's better to let all these experts look like fools who can't agree with each other, than to offer logical reasons for their wide ranges of opinion? Trabucogold (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is if these "logical reasons" involve WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. See also WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So basically we have an article that states that no one really knows what they are talking about. That these statements are nothing but opinion based on no related facts. No one has any reliable basis for comparing one man's opinion from another. None of these sound like reliable sources since their conclusions do not even agree with each other. If this is science, there should be ways to test which of these opinions is anywhere near correct. As it stands, this article is a collection of unrelated, untestable, pseudo-knowledge. Trabucogold (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they are published expert opinions based upon the experts' own research. Disagreement does not imply that sources are unreliable. Experts disagree on occasion. WP:WEIGHT tells us what to do when they do so. History is not a "science", and even if it were, Wikipedia does not engage in original research so does not go around 'testing' (i.e. second-guessing) expert opinions. This whole thread is off-topic and based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. I would suggest you read WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV & WP:RS, to familiarise yourself better with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The first reaction of most people reading this is that none of these guys knows what they are talking about, no matter how 'reliable' they are supposed to be. This ranges from NO SGs were competent geologist to SOME SGs were competent geologists. Which means nothing. Anyone reading this will walk a way knowing no more than they did before and wonder why they even use WP. There has got to be a way to get some real information about SGs other than a collection of contradictory opinions. Isn't WP about facts and not opinions? Who were the SG? What did they think? Why did thy think that way? Why did they write what they wrote? What effect did they have on the society around them? That is real information. Shouldn't that be in this article? Millhauser has a lot of that kind of information. Trabucogold (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the "first reaction" would be that the majority of sources doubt the SG's geological competence. The second impression they'd have is that there are varying caveats on this general conclusion -- not that any of the sources outright reject it (none of them state anything like that the SGs were generally highly competent geologists). Read WP:WEIGHT. Read it again. Don't bother responding to this again until you can demonstrate familiarity with it.

1. "Isn't WP about facts and not opinions?" No. Read WP:ASF.
2. "Who were the SG?" Already stated in the article lead.
3. "What did they think?" Also stated in article lead.
4. "Why did thy think that way?" WP:OR unless it has a source. In any case this is itself, of necessity, an opinion not a fact.
5. "Why did they write what they wrote?" WP:OR unless it has a source. In any case this is itself, of necessity, an opinion not a fact.
6. "What effect did they have on the society around them?" Very little, from what I can tell, but likewise WP:OR unless it has a source. In any case this is itself, of necessity, an opinion not a fact.
7. "That is real information. Shouldn't that be in this article?" Not without a source.

Please read WP:NOR again. Please don't bother responding to this again until you can demonstrate familiarity with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Ure

Note 12 on page 71 of Millhauser...

(12) ANDREW URE'S New System of Geology (I829)-"in which the Great Revolutions of the Earth and Animated Nature are reconciled at once to modern science and sacred history"-explicitly sets "the origin of the material system" at six thousand years ago. Ure was respected by his fellow scientists as a contributor to geological method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabucogold (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph where this note is referenced:

Their first important leader was GRANVILLE PENN, a scholar of some competence, who had studied geology and had come to suspect it of a tendency toward Lucretian materialism. He therefore devoted himself to the task of arguing against its theories from its facts. In two editions of his Comparative Estimate as well as the later Conversations on Geology (1828) he adduces a good deal of technical evidence, and some rather shrill logic, in support of the characteristic theses of his party. All geology is to be found in the Book of Genesis; the Six Days of Scripture were six literal days, the first of which was "in the beginning"; the world is slightly less than six thousand years old; all geological phenomena of any importance are the results of two miraculous events-the Separation of the Waters, and the Deluge. PENN argued cleverly, and the position he supported was conservative rather than erratic (12); his influence, among those who had a superficial knowledge of the subject, was considerable. Trabucogold (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Ure states:

In his next book, A New System of Geology (1829), Ure attempted to reconcile the biblical flood with the facts of geology and zoology, by boldly proposing a second, post-diluvial, Creation. Less contentious was his inference that the flood must have been accompanied by a series of fine rainbows. His geological knowledge was deficient, however, and the book was severely criticized.

This appears to directly contradict Millhauser's claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion stated as fact

"There were only two ways in which sincere men could be expected to treat this new geology: they could work out a compromise with it, or utterly repudiate it." appears to be a personal opinion stated as fact. It is particularly problematical in that it appears to conflate "sincere" with "devoutly religious". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

from page 68, paragraph 2, 3rd sentence: "Granted the temper and convictions of the time, there were only two ways in which earnest men could be expected to treat such a science: they could repudiate it utterly, or work out a compromise with it on some such terms as these." It appears to me that this is Millhauser's educated observation having read the original works and based on his experience. Ninatukawewe (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)