Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:01, 9 February 2006

Template:Totallydisputed

Part of a series on
Creationism
History
Types
Young Earth Old Earth day-age gap progressive Neo-creationism
Biblical cosmology
Book of Genesis creation narrative as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
History Public education "Teach the Controversy"
Religious views
Non-creation Creator in Buddhism Jainism and non-creationism Evolution Theistic evolution Buddhist Catholic Hindu Islamic Jewish Mormon
v t e

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a not-for-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on Young Earth Creationism, and a literal (they prefer the term plain ) interpretation of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. They state that this is 'secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ' .

AiG employs a staff exclusively of Christian evangelicals, some who have earned Ph.D. degrees from secular universities in various sciences including biology, geology, and astrophysics.

History

AiG was started in Australia in the late 1970s by John Mackay and Ken Ham and others who believed that the established church's teaching of the Bible was being compromised in the face of ever-increasing attacks by secularists. The organisation was then known as Creation Science Supplies, later changed to Creation Science Foundation (CSF).

In 1978, a separate Australian organisation started by Dr. Carl Wieland began the magazine Ex Nihilo, from the Latin phrase Creatio ex nihilo meaning "Creation out of nothing". Soon after, CSF took over production of Ex Nihilo, and later renamed it Creation Ex Nihilo and eventually simply Creation. In 1984, CSF started the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for more in-depth analysis of creation issues. It was later renamed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal then simply TJ. TJ is a refereed journal, reviewed mainly by scientists in the creationist community. It has a primarily theological (as opposed to scientific) purpose, and its guidelines begin with

TJ is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible especially in the area of origins. All members of the Editorial Team adhere to the Answers in Genesis (AiG) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.

In 1987 Ken Ham was seconded by CSF to work for the Institute for Creation Research in the United States, then in 1994 left ICR to found Answers In Genesis (USA). Later that year, CSF in Australia and other countries changed their names to Answers In Genesis.

With offices in many English-speaking countries, AiG publishes books and multimedia resources, as well as a website featuring articles and papers. AiG is also expanding into the non-English speaking world with translations and outreach ministry.

The Creation Museum

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, AiG in the United States started planning and constructing a Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, near the Greater Cincinnati International Airport, which will be used to explain the history of the World according to Young Earth Creationist beliefs. According to Ham, "One of the main reasons we moved there was because we are within one hour's flight of 69 per cent of America's population" .

Amongst its various displays and exhibits, the museum is being designed to include many life-size and even animatronic (animated and motion-sensitive) dinosaurs, large movie screens showing a young-earth history of the world, a technologically superior planetarium depicting creationist cosmologies and creationist interpretations of quantum physics, and a life-size model of Noah's Ark housing a conference center and hotel rooms. There is special attention being paid to the dinosaurs being depicted in the Garden of Eden. The Tyrannosaurus rex will be depicted as herbivorous.

The expected cost of the building, interior designs and exhibits is around US $25 million. As of November 2005, they have raised $18.3 million in donations . AiG's success in raising donations for the museum was reported in the press and on skeptical websites, where it was contrasted with the failure of the American Museum of Natural History to find corporate sponsorship for their Charles Darwin exhibit.

All museum staff applicants are required to supply a written statement confirming their faith, beliefs regarding creation, and support for the AiG statement of faith .

The museum is expected to open in the spring of 2007.

Facts and figures

• AiG offices exist in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, Canada, and the United States.
• In 2000, their quarterly Creation magazine had subscribers in about 140 countries, and 60,000 copies of each issue were being produced.
• In September 2004, their website, which is also translated into many foreign languages, had 35,000–47,000 visits per day.

Teachings and beliefs

Methodology

AiG describes their biblical hermeneutical method as "plain" (or sometimes "grammatical-historical") and why they believe it is more precise than "literal":

Simply put, our bottom line is that the proper interpretation of Scripture is to take it “plainly”, meaning “as the author intended it to be understood by the original audience”. This incorporates a literal interpretation of a literal context, poetic interpretation of poetic context, etc. This is covered in depth in the article Should Genesis be taken literally?

E.g., with Genesis, we can tell it is meant to be historic narrative because it has all the grammatical features of Hebrew narrative, e.g., the first verb is a qatal (historic perfect), and the verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols (waw consecutives); it contains many “accusative particles” that mark the objects of verbs; and terms are often carefully defined.

Apologetic method

AiG emphasizes a presuppositional rather than an evidentialist approach to apologetics. This is not to say that they deny the role of scientific evidence, but that they believe that all scientists start with axioms or presuppositions, which govern how the evidence is interpreted. Thus their view is a form of critical realism.

They believe, for example, a scientist with the presupposition of billions of years will interpret the Grand Canyon as an example of slow, drawn-out erosion. In contrast, they suggest a young earth creationist will see this as a rapid formation by catastrophic quantities of water. AiG claims that an understanding of the legitimate biases people hold helps us to better discern between actual evidence and possibly faulty interpretations of the evidence. AiG says that neither view can be scientifically proved nor disproved, and they seek to show the evidence better fits with creation than evolution.

AiG tries to present some scientific arguments to support their primarily theological views of origins and advices "holding loosely" to such scientific arguments believing that only events recorded in the Bible should be accepted with certainty. They avoid many of the rhetorical methods used by many of their contemporaries. Many of their arguments against biological evolution are similar to those of the Intelligent design movement.

AiG's views on cosmology and astronomy

AiG believes that all stars and planetary bodies were likely formed around 6000 years ago, contemporaneously with Earth. They dispute the big bang and inflationary theories of the beginning of the universe that require its age to be billions of years.

A young universe is challenged by the distant starlight problem which presents the dilemma of how we can see light from objects millions or billions of light years away in a young universe. Some creationists have attempted to answer this with explanations involving God creating light en-route or by claiming that the speed of light was faster in the past, an argument also referred to as c-decay. AiG rejects both of these proposed solutions and prefers a model proposed by physicist and creationist Russell Humphreys. Supporters of Humphreys' model, mostly young earth creationists, claim that it uses the theory of relativity to explain how billions of years could have passed in space while only a single day passed on earth. This creationist cosmology requires that our galaxy lie near the center of the universe. They believe they are supported by claims of quantized red shifts which have been subsequently falsified by redshift surveys. Thus they refuse to accept the Copernican principle, similar to the views modern geocentrism, a view that AiG officially rejects.

AiG's views on moral and social issues

Science education

AiG does not support laws or school board standards that would force the teaching of creationism in public schools. It is their position that forcing a teacher to present the theory of creation will only result in it being distorted by those who don't believe in it.. Instead of trying to change how evolution is taught in the public schools in what AiG CEO Carl Wieland calls "top-down attempts" by "battering away at the education system, or the politicians, or the media", he would prefer to see influence driven by the "changing the hearts and minds of people within ‘God’s army’, the Church". AiG is opposed to what they consider censorship of educators who want to teach evidence they consider contradictory to the theory of evolution or why there is controversy regarding this subject.

Life issues

AiG takes a strong pro-life stance on abortion because they regard individual life as beginning at fertilization. Thus they argue that the circumstances of the fertilization are irrelevant to its status as a human life which should be protected, so oppose abortion for rape and any other case, except to save the life of the mother. They are also strongly opposed to euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research, but support somatic/adult stem cell research which does not require the death of fetuses.

Homosexuality

AiG defends marriage as one man and one woman for life, based on Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, which Jesus cited in Matthew 19:3-6 and Mark 10:5-9. In claiming that homosexuality is a sin, AiG has cited writings by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9 as well as the Old Testament Law given to Israel which called for the punishment by death for those who commit homosexual acts in Leviticus 20:13. AiG believes the punishments described in the Old Testament Law, such as Leviticus 20:13, were for the Jews up to the time of Christ and have stated that they "reject the implication that we are proposing any sort of ill-treatment of homosexuals, or rejection of the sinner, as opposed to the sin."

Evolution and race

AiG also connects belief in evolutionary theory with the eugenics and racial theories of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, as well as Soviet Communism. In dealing with Christendom's own violent history, the group claims that anyone who used the Bible to justify atrocities (such as during the Crusades, the colonization of the New World, pogroms or the burning of tens of thousands of women as witches) was clearly misinterpreting the Bible's intent (e.g., Jesus says to love your enemies and bless them that curse you Matthew 5:44).

Merged with this approach is the concurrence between AiG and some scientists that "race" is a meaningless construct, which AiG sees as supported by scripture. Using this line of argument, AiG argues that Creationism, along with other Biblical teachings, is the only true answer to the social problem of racism, and that evolution has (and still does) promote racism .

To support this view, AiG cites selections from early twentieth century biology textbooks (such as Hunter's Civic Biology, the textbook used in the Scopes Trial) which illustrate the close connection between theories of eugenics and theories of evolution.

See also Race

Death and suffering

It is AiG's position that God is sovereign and is in control of every event that occurs. AiG admits that tragic events such as the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center and the Indian Ocean tsunami which killed hundred of thousands of people, while having direct connections to terrorists or shifting tectonic plates, are under the control of God who they believe is "the sovereign of the universe—the One who is continually upholding the entire cosmos with the Word of His power".. AiG rejects the implications that untimely deaths and suffering are always the direct result of an individual's sins and cite passages from the Bible as examples where these were sometimes linked to a greater purpose of God.

Culture and media

AiG has accused Hollywood of using "subtle tactics" to slip in "evolutionary content". Movies and television programs they have criticized for doing this include The Munsters, Lilo and Stitch, Bugs Bunny, Fantasia and Finding Nemo. .

Tax-exempt status

AiG-US is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in the United States of America. .

The website of WCPO TV has reported that in 2003, AiG-US "did not meet all of the Bureau's accountability standards" (emphasis in original) . Bill Wise, then CEO of AiG, answered that this was due to a "miscommunication, understanding regarding document submittals back in August of 2002." (ibid ) AiG-US is now listed as meeting each of the Better Business Bureau's 19 standards for charitable accountability .

Criticisms

No Answers in Genesis is a site maintained by members of Australian Skeptics led by retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting AiG.

In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff scientists debated a team from the Australian Skeptics online on Margo Kingston's web diary section of the Sydney Morning Herald website.

AiG has compiled a list of "scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation" to show that it is possible for a modern working scientist to accept creationism. They use the criteria that each member of the list must have a doctorate in a scientific field.

In response to this, and similar lists, the (US) National Center for Science Education's Project Steve (after Stephen Jay Gould) is a tongue in cheek list of scientists who accept evolution, whose first name is Stephen (or some derivative, such as Steven, or Stephanie). The idea being that evolution is so well accepted by mainstream scientists that even a list of Steves will outnumber any creationist list.) AiG's list currently has 154 signatories as opposed to 637 "Steves" on the NCSE list.

AiG's apologetics have also been questioned. Critics charge that they argue against evolution rather than for creationism and are trying to lend credence to supernatural origins of life simply by discrediting natural origins. Many creationists would agree, and claim that they are merely using the disjunctive syllogism and Law of excluded middle, and that many evolutionists have done the same, i.e. argue against creation (why would God have done it this way?") rather than for evolution.

Financial motivations

AiG has weathered other criticisms, including speculations about financial motivations and accusations of financially-driven agendas. In an article about a ministry visit by AiG's Dr Jason Lisle, Dr Christopher Sharpe (on his 'domain name for commercial uses', CSharpe) speculated on Dr Lisle's 'motivation for ... involvement with creationism' by saying, "Somewhat less favorable explanations are that he is in it for the money and/or the pride." On John Stear's website, No Answers in Genesis, in an article that touched on many different topics regarding Creation Science, Dr Kevin Henke made a more generalised complaint against YEC ministries, "Nevertheless, there is little doubt that many of these YEC ministries survive on the backs of many poor and elderly members that really can't afford to be throwing money at such a hopeless cause".

Also, in similar articles about the Creation museum development project, Lexington's Ace Weekly and Cincinnati's CityBeat quoted Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in the dismissed lawsuit/countersuit with AiG (USA), saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination."

The AiG website refers visitors who are interested in AiG-USA public information to Guidestar. Guidestar reported that the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million in 2004. In that year, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572. Other high ranking officials were compensated $115,621 (Dale Mason), $92,352 (Carl Kerby), $91,316 (Mike Zovath), $89,133 (Mark Looy) and $86,068 (Kathy Ellis). Dr Lisle was not listed, according to the 990 (page 7), as one of the 'employee paid more than $50,000'.

Kevin Eigelbach, staff reporter for the Kentucky Post, in an article about Answers in Genesis' (USA) message, reported Ham's salary for 2001 and Ham's defense of that salary amount: People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices made to get the ministry started. had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with teacher's retirement pay.

AiG's Warwick Armstrong, in a 2001 article discussing media coverage of an AiG Supercamp/Conference in Sydney, responded directly against criticism of this nature:

Having worked full-time for Answers in Genesis for the past ten years, I have yet to see much of this money. Having come from the business world, I am aware of the wages and conditions which exist there. Many people in AiG are working for a third (or less) of what they would receive in secular jobs. Further, as we travel throughout Australia and the world doing our talks we are mostly billeted with supporters, gladly accepting whatever (free) accommodation is available. Conversely, evolutionists seem to have access to limitless funds, ultimately coerced from taxpayers, to promulgate their religion."

Controversy over Interview with Richard Dawkins

In 1998, AiG filmed an interview Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Extracts from the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by AiG. The interview, which can be viewed at an AiG web page appears to show Dawkins nonplussed and pausing for 11 seconds when asked by the interviewer to name one example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome.

In an article by the Australian Skeptics , the film was alleged to have been carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to answer the question, whereas in fact the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins related to the Australian Skeptics how the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.

AiG has responded in an article Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?. According to their account, the raw footage shows that Dawkins, who had previously been informed of the interviewer's creationist sympathies, was asked the same question and could not answer. The video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity.

Definitions, probability and natural selection

AiG focuses heavily on proving the odds of the origin of life are virtually impossible, where life is defined as the first cell. However, biologists and AiG agree that Darwinian evolution is not a theory of how life began but rather a theory of the variability in life through natural processes.

AiG has pointed out that while the idea of spontaneous generation of complex life was all but abandoned after Louis Pasteur's work, abiogenesis remains one of the key conjectures of prebiotic evolution. Even though most modern scientists see a difference between the two ideas, AiG maintains that they are the same. To this end, they have cited the probability of a cell spontaneously coming into existence as more than 1 in 10 (referring to combinatorial analysis). They state that this event is an outstandingly improbable event, which would appear to require a larger explanation than 'mere' chance. Further discussion on probability examines the ability for mere chance to create even "the smallest life form".

Critics of creationism have pointed out that the mechanisms of evolution including natural selection cumulate small probabilities and such creationist combinatorial analysis does not account for the true possibilities of life evolving to become a cell. Such probability arguments are criticized as artificial limiting of biological and prebiotic mechanisms in the development of life.

AiG staffers are aware of the concept of natural selection about which they have written at a number of articles . They state that "...It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information., citing one example of natural selection removing genes for short fur in cold climates. However, critics cite mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy as examples where new information is available for the natural selection of new functions.

External links

• AiG website
• AiG's Creation Museum website
• Answers In Creation Old-earth creationist/theistic-evolution–sympathizing site allegedly demonstrating numerous errors in the work of Answers in Genesis
• No Answers in Genesis website A site explicitly critical of AIG
• Institute for Creation Research Another young-earth organization that sometimes joins forces with Answers in Genesis but is independent and has slightly different emphases

• Young Earth creationism
• Creation Science