Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 1

message: I've substantially copyedited this section. I believe that it now presents the views of the organisation in a more neutral way. It seemed subtly critical to me - phrases like "they even go so far as to claim..." felt out of place. I'm still not sure it's perfect - additional thoughts welcomed. --  ALargeElk | Talk 16:32, 6 Jul 2004 (U
This section concentrates too much on the racism aspect.  Sure, that is one of their platforms, but only one of several. Philip J. Rayment 03:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Teachings and beliefs

message: * Corrected and expanded the history and organisational aspects.
* Changed "scientific degrees" to "scientific qualifications", on the assumption that the former doesn't allow for qualifications other than degrees (although I'm not an expert in this area).
* Changed "apparently assuming that disproving evolution gives evidence for Creation." to "on the basis that disproving evolution gives credence to Creation", because (a) this is not something that they assume but something that they argue, and (b) it is pejorative to say this when evolutionists do the same (i.e. argue against creation as though that supports evolution).  Even so, I'm not convinced that it is fair to say that "many of their arguments are arguments against evolution...".  It may be accurate, but possibly misleading.  I don't suppose anyone has actually done a study of what proportion fall into that category?
Philip J. Rayment 03:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Disproving evolution doesn't support creationism. Thus it's not a "basis". - Nunh-huh 03:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV, and your change is not NPOV.  Saying "on the basis that" is, in my opinion, stating a fact that this is the (claimed) basis on which they do it, and it is neutral as to whether or not that basis is valid. However, upon further consideration, I have reworded it to claim and counter-claim. Philip J. Rayment 12:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a question of POV whether or not disproving evolution supports Creationism -- that's a question of basic scientific logic (just as disproving Special Relativity would not make Maxwellian theories about space any more true). However I'm happy enough with the current version of it. --Fastfission 13:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad of that.  And it is technically correct that disproving evolution does not prove creation (by the way, why "evolution" but "creationism"?), but in practical terms, if there are only two serious candidates around, disproving one does lend support to the other.  Philip J. Rayment 16:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't work that way. "Disproving" Maxwellian EM via the Michelson-Morley experiment does not, on its own, show the validity of General Relavity, but does spark one to look for other ideas. "Proving" (all of this proof and disproof is really not correct for talking about science anyway, but I think we all know that here) that starlight is bent around the sun, however, does point one in a definite direction. Anyway it doesn't matter much for this, except that it is worth noting that they do indeed spend most of their efforts trying to disprove Evolution rather than prove Creationism (like most Creationists). --Fastfission 18:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Double standards -- many evolutionists, including Darwin and Gould, have argued, in essence, that God wouldn't have done it that way, so evolution must have.  And many evolutionists have said that evolution must be true because the only alternative is creation.  So it's hypocritical to object to the disjunctive syllogism when creationists use it, but OK it when evolutionists so.220.244.224.8 08:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, you may have a point about the racism bit, although other distinctives are their reliance on the Bible, with the science as secondary, and their willingness to withdraw arguments found to be unsupportable.  But then you (I assume) are looking at it from the American point of view, where I think they emphasise the racism aspect more than here in Australia (due to the local circumstances in each case).  I did notice that it was "many", but "many" could mean 100 out of 1000, i.e. still a reasonably small percentage, yet I don't think that would be the impression a reader would get, which is why I didn't say that "many" is wrong, but possibly unfair. Philip J. Rayment 16:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the spectrum of Creationist groups, if I were to vaguely categorize from my experience, I would say that you usually get mostly one of two groups: straight-religion Creationists (who use very little science) and the "scientific" Creationists (who purport to use a lot of science). I suppose AiG is somewhat unique in that it tries to be both at the same time. At the same time it talks about needing to maintain Biblical statements as axioms, it also tries to engage with modern anthropology and genetics. As for the racism aspect, yes, I'm looking at it from the US point of view. Regardless, I think "many" is fair enough, and accurate enough. --Fastfission 18:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes as at 14th Sept. 2004:

message: Why is this organisation relevant? Ejrrjs | What? 01:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as Creationist groups go, they're fairly prominent. I think it's good for people to able to quickly see what a group like this believes, I think it helps them evaluate them when they are used as a source for various claims. (I say that as someone who disagrees with them pretty strongly, but thinks their entry here should be as fair as possible nonetheless). --Fastfission 03:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer. I still do not see why AiG is SO relevant that its weird belief are scattered all thru the encyclopedia. IF there is some good explanation (the one with more members, the one with more money, etc.) it should be stated in the opening sentence, instead of explaining what they mean by "hermeneutical method". Ejrrjs | What? 01:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this vanity page is allowed in Wikipedia...? 

message: I just finished editing the Strategies section only to notice the section about Evolution and race. Is there any reason these two sections haven't been merged before now? The strategies section is almost completely about racism. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 20:06, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
:Their use of history as a strategy is different than just their belief in a certain version of it. At one point this difference was reflected in the entry but elaboration to both parts made them look fairly redundant at this point. Fastfission 02:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strategies" and "Evolution and race" 

message: Hey Wiki's, 
I am on the mailing list for AIG, it is a battle scar from a pranking war. Nevertheless, I am always excited for their newsletter. A whiles back, i wrote to them, asking them about how they could possibly account for the Earth being 6,000 years old. With some wikipermission, I would like to post this letter on the AIG page. I'll post it under crticisms, if you don't like it then let me know.
Also, I have noticed that over the past few years, AIG has abandoned "Operation Refuting Compromise". I will post on this subject as well. 
--Reid 20:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly because publishing private emails is a breach of copyright? And because emails are not a credible source for Wikipedia? How do we know you haven't doctored them, for example?  Whether Duncharris deemed your contribution as "worthless" is for him to say, but he was perfectly justified in deleting them because they violate Wiki standards.58.162.245.111 04:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Letter to AIG 

message: Is this really pertinent to AiG? What I mean is, if someone types in "Answers in Genesis" in the search box, is this Richard Dawkins section really the sort of thing that they're likely to find useful? I can see maybe having half a paragraph or a couple of links on the Richard Dawkins page over this, but as it stands this section looks like it's merely going to become a contentious spot in this article. Is anyone else for removing it or reducing it down to a sentence or two in another section?  TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 00:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi- the same question of relevancy was put on the Dawkins page!  AiG is a massively controversial organization with very controversial views.  Why should the Wikipedia page not reflect this?  This all started because the AiG link with the video was on the Dawkins page and we were discusssing the controversy surrounding that.  I suggested moving the link to the AiG page- with an accompanying discussion of its controversy.  I think the fact that AiG has quite heavily promoted this video on their own web pages makes a strong case for Wikipedia covering this.  Finally, I hope that we can come up with text that satisfies everyone.  I checked out the 'pro-creationist' response to my initial text and found to my surprise that at least some of it seems documented by 3rd party sources- i.e. the Morton guy who listened to the entire interview and supports the AiG stance.  I think I have adequately documented this without offending either party.  I know which side of the creationist debate I support- but I am trying to give a factual representation of the controversy.  Christianjb 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't so much have a problem with the AiG side of the story or npov or sources, I just think this is a bit silly to devote so much space to. But I've gotten used to the fact that my ideas of relevance differ from everyone else's, so I'll leave it be. :) TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh and I see that someone's just removed the mailing list ref. I put up.  I think the given reason is fair enough, that it doesn't meet the encyclopeadia standard- however, I'd like to see this info included if someone can find a better reference- preferably a published article. Christianjb 01:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over Interview with Richard Dawkins 

message: From the revision history:
58.162.246.25 (Talk) (removing boring repetition about "peer review", since the establishment journals refuse to publish creationist views. It is perfectly relevant that a critical site was founded by a bigoted atheist.)
Well, it's a fact that many (all?) of AiG's theories and interpretations have not been accepted into the peer review mainstream literature.  I added statements to this effect at points in the article where creationist theories are put forward.  This is an encyclopaedia people!  It's not enough to list the scientific musings of AiG without mentioning that they are simply not accepted by ANY of the mainstream journals.  
:It gets boring to harp on about this, when you know perfectly well that they refuse to publish work critical of materialistic evolution.58.162.252.67 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What a sensitive soul you are.  This is a true statement, and has everything to do with his rejection of a Creator.58.162.252.67 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Duh, since Dawkins claimed that Darwin made it "possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", obviously atheists NEED evolution as their crutch.58.162.252.67 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This assumes that all skeptics are atheists. And this is wrong. David D. (Talk) 20:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Then prove it, rather than boring us all by argumentum ad populum.
I see that the edit I'm referring to was just reverted (good!).  Please let's not get into an iterative loop here- if contributors to this page disagree with my statements above- then let's have a reasoned argument on the talk page. Christianjb 12:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This section contains quotes that are unsigned.  Please sign your posts to this page.  If this goes on much longer I will request that all unsigned posts are immediately deleted.  Thanks.  Christianjb 13:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant attempt by anonymous pro-creationist editor to silence facts 

message: Some of you will have noticed that I've made quite a few edits in the last few weeks.  The majority of these edits are of a skeptical bent.  Am I expressing a POV?  That's a tough question, and maybe not for me to decide.  I would however like to point out that I try to outline places where AiG disagrees with majority opinion in mainstream science, a position which is encouraged by Wikipedia style guides.  Finally, I am also trying to refrain from criticizing the theology of AiG, about which I am not qualified to comment and have little opinion on.  It's only the science of AiG that I am experienced enough to write about.  It may be possible to criticize AiG from a theological perspective, i.e. pointing out disagreements with mainstream Christianity (whatever that is), or with mainstream interpretations of scripture, but that is not my goal.  I tend to take the view that it is reasonable for religious oriented pages on Wikipedia to fully and fairly explain the tenets of its believers without contradiction from competing religious views.  Let me know your thoughts Christianjb 07:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No they don't.220.245.180.133 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Only those who molest young men, as is amply clear from the article and previous discussion.220.245.180.133 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, right.  You are a well-balanced editor—chips on both shoulders. 220.245.180.133 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of position from one editor

message: All of the information below is correct (and sourced) to my knowledge.  I have an uneasy feeling there may be legal ramifications to some of the following- and I'd like to ask around before placing this back on the article page.  I'll see what "official" Wikipedia guidelines say, and I'd like very much to hear your comments.
(Also, please read the Terms of Use of the charitynavigator page: )  thanks, Christianjb 08:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE.  (Maybe no-one's concerned- I've received a big silence on this haha, but anyway)  I emailed charitynavigator and got a nice response this morning telling me I was free to quote those figures from their site.  Yeah, I do seem paranoid, but you should see their legal page, not for the faint of heart.  I'm reinstating the text.Christianjb 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Help

message: Continuing from my discussion on the Sarfati page...
I do not like anonymous editors making controversial edits to controversial pages.  I would much prefer to have a reasoned debate.  I am watching all edits very closely right now.  I will list any objections on this talk page (within a few hours) and I will expect that  58.162.252.67 will be able to defend his/her edits.  Christianjb 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by  58.162.252.67  

message: ----
AiG defends marriage as one man and one woman for life, based on (Gen. 1:27) and (Gen. 2:24), which Jesus cited in (Mat. 19:3–6) and (Mar 10:5–9).   AiG rejects homosexual behavior  and polygamy, while AiG sees nothing wrong with so-called Interracial marriage .
AiG views homosexuals as sinners who should be punished. They don't explicitly outline which punishment they feel is appropriate except to link to (Lev. 20:13) which calls for the death penalty for homosexuals . They have also called for pedophile Catholic priests to be relabeled as "gay priests".
::" The way they [media] describe certain wayward Catholic priests (a tiny minority) as ‘pedophile priests’. However, they would be far better described as ‘gay priests’, since their usual targets were adolescent boys rather than little girls." Jonathan Sarfati Feb 2005 . 
AiG has referred to homosexuals who strongly disagree with such attitudes as "homonazis".
::"Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Green was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom." Jonathan Sarfati Feb 2005 . 
This neologism is particularly offensive to most homosexuals given that Nazis killed tens of thousands of homosexuals during the Holocaust, who they labelled as parasitic subhumans, or untermensch.
:As pointed out, this neologism referred to those who jailed Christian dissenters from the homosexual party line, a fascistic thing to do.  Evidently CJB supports this persecution of dissenters.  And he ignores the strong homosexual element in the Nazi rise to power, e.g. Ernst Röhm.58.162.252.67 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself." 
Christianjb 19:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage and homosexuality is it inflammatory?

message: I have placed a notice on Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance requesting an advocate.  I'll let you know here when I get any news.  As before, let's all keep a cool head and do things the proper way.  If anyone has any comments then let me know either here or on my talk page.  Christianjb 00:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now requesting advocacy. 

message: It is inexcusable to delete AiG's charge of equivocation from a section on definitions.  Also, it is perfectly appropriate to show that Dobzhansky agrees that natural selection should not be used to explain first life.  It seems that some editors fail to understand this, by harping on as if Dawkins' natural selection arguments undermine AiG's probability calculations of the origin of the first living organism.58.162.245.148 03:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: According to various news sources today (search Wikipedia in google news) Wikipedia is going to prevent anonymous edits.  There's also the possibility of forbidding users from contributing to articles about themselves (you know who you are).  This is great news for this page.  Christianjb 03:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  So far, the anons have had facts on their side, while CJB has been guilty of several inflammatory misrepresentations and scientific and mathematical errors.220.245.180.133 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input.  Christianjb 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately the news now seems to be that anons will only be forbidden from starting new articles.  So, alas we will have to live with the anons longer yet.
Problems with anons:
*No talk page
*No idea whether I'm talking to 1 person or 20 people
*Not even a slight accountability.  
*Organizations can get their employees to anonymously bombard a page daily with edits.
*No idea if I'm having the same argument with the same person.
I've received a lot of criticism on this page- but I am far more accountable than most of my critics.  I even provide my email address on my user page.  Christianjb 10:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big news for Wikipedia? 

message: There's an interesting blog post by professor of law Richard Bales  regarding "Religious Job Requirements for Creation Museum".  (I thought I'd do my bit for AiG by creating this PR for them.)
:Religious Job Requirements for Creation Museum
:The group "Answers in Genesis" is building a 50,000 square-foot Creation Museum set to open in 2007 in Northern Kentucky -- just south of Cincinnati.  The job description of every job at the museum -- including the description for housekeepers -- requires applicants to sign a "Statement of Faith."  Here are just a few provisions in the Statement of Faith:
:A.  Priorities
:The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
:B. Basics
:The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
:C.  Theology
:The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
:All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
:D.  General
:Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
:The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
:The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
:Posted by Rick Bales.  Thanks to Christian Burnham.
Christianjb 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious discrimination? 

message: The article is 37 kb and lacks the flow to justfiy the size. I believe Aig's views on social and moral issues should be condensed to two or three paragraphs.  The article fails to go over Aig's scientific(or pseudo-scientific) views which is the most important part of the organization.  If anything, that deserves mulitiple sections. Aig's views on natural dissastors and terrorist attacks should be merged into the morals section.  It seems the article has picked all the controversial moral and social issues while barely mentioning the more important scientific issues. What do you all think? Falphin 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough one.  They're equal parts science and morality based.  Then there's the criticism that this isn't the place to dissect AiG's creationist science- since that's done on other Wikipedia pages.  Also- we're just recovering from an edit war- so maybe now's not the best time to be chopping major parts of the article out.  Maybe in a couple of weeks.Christianjb 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One possibility is to create sub-articles. Like a "Answers in Genesis's scientific(or pseduo-scientific probably will require a vote to decide) views"(hopefully a better title. Aig moral and social views. Criticisms of Answers and Genesis's. And a controversy article. Even thought that sounds like a lot for one organization I know we could fill it all up. I imagine the creation museum will also eventually merrit its own article once it is opened to the general public. Falphin 02:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that sounds like a lot of work to manage.  Can we postpone this for a couple of weeks?  As I said- we've just come off a major edit war.  I agree that the creation museum eventually deserves its own article.  The article is too long- but not by that much.  Christianjb 02:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue, with waiting. I don't have time to do anything on wikipedia right now. I just feel that the article needs to have work done. This article is on tract to reaching the Good article list. However, it needs more citations, and needs to only include the most important stuff on this page, and have other articles for the rest. To avoid another edit war, a sub page could be created and then later merged once things are settled down. Falphin 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs to be cut down. Specifically, there is a whole section that is basically a standard Creation vs Evolution debate that only makes passing reference to AiG specifically. I really think this section needs to be take out altogether and only how AiG differs from other creationists should be kept. The article is supposed to explain AiG, not assess the validity of their arguments. Ashmoo 05:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs to be condensed

message: Looking through the science section, I see that most of it is not very encyclopedic, but rather an essay on the flaws of Young Earth Creationism. The vague terms 'most scientists','many scientists', etc are repeatably used. This is verging on 'Original Research'. 
I think this article is long enough as is, and the criticism section should only outline direct criticism of AiG along with actual quotes (or cites) of those criticisms. A link should be provided to more general criticism of YEC (of which there are numerous on the web).
I know this is a controversial subject, but ask for good faith from my fellow editors.
Regards, Ashmoo 03:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a whitewash of all material critical of AiG to me.  Guettarda 04:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry if it looks that way, but it is not the case. What do you think of the points I raised in the above para? Ashmoo 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are.  I have culled some duplications, POV, original research and the repeated "vague terms".58.162.252.58 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science section mass culling