Wikipedia

Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 8

< Talk:Answers in Genesis
Latest comment: 5 years ago by ජපස in topic Let's talk about the lede
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Second sentence and other matters

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

The second sentence of the lede has been the subject of, how shall I put it, some discussion. To be clear, this is the sentence as it stands:

It advocates a [[Biblical literalism|literal]] or [[Historical-grammatical method|historical-grammatical]] interpretation of the [[Book of Genesis]], with a particular focus on a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] promotion of [[young Earth creationism]], which rejects those results of [[scientific investigation]] that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the [[Genesis creation narrative]].

and so it appears as:

It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

When I first saw the ongoing conflict after seeing a thread at WP:AN, one of my first thoughts was about the phrase "pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism" – which, as far as I can see, had not been raised. I wondered why pseudoscientific was used as a modifier of "promotion" when I thought it was YEC that was the pseudoscience. I was going to post here until I saw that ජපස had modified it to "promoting the pseudoscience of young Earth creationism" with the edit summary "simpler wording. YEC is a pseudoscience." I thanked jps for his edit, I seemed to me to be a better choice of words. Unfortunately, Oldstone James reverted with the edit summary "Actually, creation science is a pseudoscience, as well as the allegedly 'scientific' promotion of YEC. YEC by itself is just a religious belief that does no claim to be a science, and hence cannot be a pseudoscience." This was followed by three further reverts in under ten minutes. Another revert by 1990'sguy followed a few hours later, and Guy Macon's WP:STATUSQUO revert returned us to 27 March. Three more edits (not to the second sentence) and a revert from Bloodofox and we are back to a protected article, courtesy of Black Kite, and OJ is serving a block under WP:3RR. It seems that nothing much here is actually uncontroversial and I think that we should use this period of protection to actually find some consensus – and I am not meaning to blame anyone as there are clearly some reasons for disagreement. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 1: Pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism

I'd be happy with "promotes pseudoscientific young Earth creationism", but think we may need a citation for that: will comment in a new section. Also note, as far as I know AiG is opposed to ID, though creation science tends to use the same arguments. . dave souza, talk 11:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, AiG is critical of ID as a movement.[1] No idea why intelligent design has been suddenly introduced here: it isn't mentioned in the article. StAnselm (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I was unaware of AiG's view on ID, thanks for pointing it out. I've struck out those mentions. EdChem (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about this, but I like 1H the best. 1B is also pretty good. I like anything containing "pseudoscientific promotion" the least, because it sort of implies that the promotion itself is pseudoscientific, as apposed to promoting pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the strikethroughs, I prefer 1F as being clear and accurate. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 1A is the best of bad options, so if these are the only choices, it's what I'll choose. Preferably, I support promotion of young Earth creationism (without the unnecessary/over-the-top "pseudoscience" wording, which just shoves it in the readers' faces--just click on the YEC article and you'll see it) as the best option. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 1990'sguy, you or anyone else is free to suggest alternatives. Oldstone James has expressed a preference for 1H, though with an addition of a link to biblical inerrancy as the reason for rejection of science. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 2: Dangling modifier

  • In the present form, it is unclear whether the clause following the "which" modifies AiG's advocacy or yEc.
  • Plenty of options have been canvassed above, none has found consensus, but I'm happy to summarise them if that would be helpful.
  • To them, I would add:
  • My preference is 1H or the reordering. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the reordering, except for everything after "Genesis creation narrative," which I think is an unnecessary addition to the sentence. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 3: Hatnote

A hat note was added:

{{short description|Fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization}}

Should this be returned or not?

  • I have no strong opinion. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • All five words are true, but they really aren't defining. What is defining is the rejection of science and the promotion of creationism. I would prefer a description that includes those two defining characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not really a hatnote, is it? It doesn't appear on the page. I don't actually know what these "short descriptions" are for. StAnselm (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support the hatnote, especially if the description is simplified to "Christian apologetics organization" -- AiG may focus on Genesis 1-11, but it goes into depth on other Christian apologetics topics, including the historicity of the resurrection, evidence for the other 65 books for the Bible, abortion/same-sex marriage/other current social issues, etc. I would be OK strictly including "young earth creationist" as well, if necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 4: Views and activities

In the Views and activities section, the following part:

Ham's message has had three central points. Firstly, teaching of evolution is an evil causing terrible damage to society, secondly, the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis give direct instruction on the creation of the universe and human social behavior, and thirdly that proper Christians must engage in a total conflict battling against atheistic humanism. Answers in Genesis promotes central young Earth creationist doctrines, including literal Creation of the Earth in six 24-hour days and effects of the global flood, but their main focus is acceptance of the authority of their particular literal reading of the Bible as a precondition for eternity in heaven. They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason, with those choosing the latter liable to dire eternal punishment.

was changed to (sections in green are the original, purple highlights the changes):

Ham's message has had three central points: that teaching of evolution is an evil causing damage to society; that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis give a precise description of the process of creation of the universe and provide direct instruction on the organization of society; and that proper Christians must engage in a total conflict battling against atheistic humanism. Answers in Genesis promotes central young Earth creationist doctrines, including literal Creation of the Earth in six 24-hour days and effects of the global flood, but their main focus is acceptance of the authority of their particular literal reading of the Bible as a precondition for eternity in heaven. They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason, particularly the teaching of evolution which they regard as evil.

Later in the same section, the sentence:

Since their beliefs reject natural causes and events in scientific explanations of nature and the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural, creation science is considered to be a religion by the National Academy of Sciences.

has been modified to insert the word "many" after "their beliefs reject"

  • Most of these changes seem clear improvements to me. There was a debate above on word of God / human reason that is not reflected in these before-and-after snippets. On the addition of "many", do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins, or only some of them? Adding "many" implies to me that some natural causes / events in universal origins are accepted, and I'm not sure that that is true. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Re: "do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins, or only some of them?", they accept natural causes in the same way that an atheist scientist accepts the bible as a science book -- if the Bible happens to say something that is exactly the same as what science says, in that one case the atheist scientist will agree that that part of the Bible is literally true. Likewise with AiG. AiG is clear about this:
"If a scientific model does not contradict the Bible, then we should be excited to see what new insights we can gain about the Creator and His workings. As with the question of origins, we must interpret the data through the lens of biblical revelation."[2]
To AiG, a natural cause outside of God simply does not exist. Let's take Gravity as an example. A scientist will tell you that gravity is a purely natural phenomena even as he tells you that we don't always understand the details (see quantum gravity). But AiG rejects the idea that gravity is a purely natural phenomena. Here is what they says the underlying cause of gravity is:
"Two Bible references are helpful in considering the nature of gravity and physical science in general. First, Colossians 1:17 explains that Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist. The Greek verb for consist (sunistao) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together. Extrabiblical Greek use of this word pictures a container holding water within itself. The word is used in Colossians in the perfect tense, which normally implies a present continuing state arising from a completed past action. One physical mechanism used is obviously gravity, established by the Creator and still maintained without flaw today. Consider the alternative; if gravity ceased for one moment, instant chaos surely would result. All heavenly objects, including the earth, moon and stars, would no longer hold together. Everything would immediately disintegrate into small fragments."
"A second reference, Hebrews 1:3, declares that Christ upholds all things by the word of His power. Uphold (phero) again describes the sustaining or maintaining of all things, including gravity. The word uphold in this verse means much more than simply supporting a weight. It includes control of all the ongoing motions and changes within the universe. This infinite task is managed by the Lord’s almighty Word, whereby the universe itself was first called into being. Gravity, the ‘mystery force’, which is poorly understood after nearly four centuries of research, is one of the manifestations of this awesome divine upholding.""[3]
AiG even directly addresses the question of whether they believe that the root cause of everything is God or whether they believe that the root cause of everything is natural laws:
"Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law."[4]
So the answer to the question "do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins" is "Yes. They do. And they are proud of it." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting example of intelligent falling. There seems to be a lot of evidence that AiG reject science in favour or revelation, and don't much bother to claim that what they propose is scientific. Think there are instances where they make pseudoscientific claims, but we need to be clearer about sources for that. . . . dave souza, talk 11:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Guy Macon: I think I have misread a diff. I thought that the word "many" had be re-added, and in doing so, the text implies that some naturalistic explanations are accepted by AiG... but on looking again, I think I have it backwards. Removing the word "many", as has been done, seems correct to me. I still think the other changes are improvements in a grammatical / linguistic sense. Dave souza's point below is interesting and needs careful consideration, too. EdChem (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I support all these changes by Oldstone James, and I think the wording is an improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Creation science / pseudoscience?

Latest comment: 5 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

Answers in Genesis#Criticism opens with the statement "Creation science, which is promoted by AiG," but as far as I can see the sources cited make no reference to AiG so don't support that statement. They confirm that creation science is pseudoscience, but part of that is that creation science claims scientific validity, while Answers in Genesis#Views and activities indicates that AiG simply rejects science as having any authority. Trollinger confirms that, while describing how Ham started in Morris's creation science movement.
So, we need a citation. Tried having a look at some of the citations in the article, the nearest I got is 36. Branch, Glenn (September 1, 2001). "PBS's "Evolution": The Creationist Backlash" which doesn't cover it, but links to NCSE's 61 page document (pdf) "Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Creationist Misinformation about the PBS Series Evolution". On p. 40 AiG is quoted as saying "real science supports the Biblical account of origins as recorded in Genesis, the first book of the Bible” referring to "Articles" by their Dr Jonathan Sarfati; there may be better references. So, it's plausible that AiG does at times claim scientific support, but I think we need a better citation both for that and for their alleged promotion of creation science. . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The two are really the exact same thing, marketed to different audiences. If you are a fundamentalist christian, creationism is there to tell you that (main point) the Bible is always 100% true and (minor point) that any science that contradicts the Bible is bad science. If you are a scientist, creation science is there to tell you (main point) that any science that contradicts certain scientific theories (which, by an amazing coincidence, just happen to be the exact same ones from the Bible mentioned above) is bad science and (minor point,almost never mentioned but they do believe it) that the Bible is always 100% true.
You can see how this works in this quote by a creationist in our Wedge strategy article:
"So the question is: 'How to win?' That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing' -the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy."
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but I think we need a source explicitly discussing this. To quote Views and activities From the outset, Ken Ham did not share the interest of other creation science groups in aiming to produce science supporting young Earth creationism.[9] Instead, Answers in Genesis presents evangelicalism as an all-out battle of their biblical worldview against a naturalistic scientific worldview." It's a flat-out rejection of science, not the usual pretence that their beliefs are more sciency as exemplified by your quote from the ID cdesign proponentsists. AiG is different, and even Sarfati seems to be CMI rather than AiG these days. Sorry if I've missed a citation, but we need a reference for this. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't there evidence for their support of creation science in the publication of their Answers Research Journal (redirects to the AiG page), homepage? The paper review process described in the journal's instructions to authors states that:
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? If necessary, refer to the following: R. E. Walsh, 1986. “Biblical Hermeneutics and Creation.” In Proceedings First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
and is followed by a remark declaring that:
The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or if it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.
To me, this affirms that they do start from the perspective that the Bible is true and invites pseudoscientific contributions on yEc and related creation science. I struggle to see how anything satisfying criteria 3 and 4 could fail to be pseudoscientific. The introduction expresses the intent of the manual for authors as follows:
it is hoped that this manual will facilitate your contribution to the technical development of the Creation and Flood model of origins.
This is a clear statement that it aims to promote pseudoscience as that is the nature of the creation and flood model of origins.
I think there should be a section in our article on the journal and its purpose. Jennifer Barone, in Discover, comments on the transparency of ARJ's intent: "Now, it’s not exactly Earth-shattering news that a creation “science” “journal” has to do some serious cherry-picking to fill its pages. But personally, I’m pleasantly shocked to find that they’re so darn transparent about it. They’ve helpfully explained in a neatly-ordered list that they’re only interested in hearing news that confirms what they already believe. Of course this kind of tunnel vision exists, but you’d think they would do their best to cover it up in public. Instead, it’s all nicely laid out as editorial policy. Thanks, AiG!"
There are secondary sources available, such as:
  • Adam Rutherford, an editor of Nature, wrote an Op-Ed published in The Guardian as saying that "On first glance, ARJ looks kinda like a science journal. "ARJ" sounds a bit like it could be a science journal. But sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken." He also notes the journal website's self-description: "a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework" – that last part going directly to the issues above, of course.
  • The Nature paper doi:10.1038/451382b also comments on research being "within a biblical framework" and that peer review will be undertaken by those who "support the positions taken by the journal." Eugenie Scott is quoted: "Publications such as ARJ are part of the continued battle to excise science from local curricula, she says. 'Creation science is alive and well and appealing to a substantial minority of the American public.'"
  • I've located some of this from the Rational Wiki article on ARJ and there are plenty more sources. Maybe I should write an ARJ article to replace our redirect? EdChem (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Adam Rutherford is a journalist for the Grauniad and it's an opinion piece, suggesting a somewhat indirect claim to scientific credibility, so not ideal but it's something. The second source is a Nurture news piece, not a paper. Genie Scott says AiG's publication "ARJ" is "part of the continued battle to excise science from local curricula", and says. “Creation science is alive and well..." but doesn't directly say AiG is promoting creation science. Think we can do better, eventually. . dave souza, talk 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The above are all excellent points.
On the one hand there is a good argument for our documenting (using reliable secondary sources such as those above) AiG's emphasis on being blatantly Bible-based vs. some other creationists' "get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate" emphasis, but without any hint that those other creationists are promoting any sort of actual science as opposed to "creation science" which denies being Bible based but suspiciously comes to the exact same conclusions as the more open Bile-believers.
On the other hand, AiG (which has no problem at all with telling us when they disagree with a fellow creationist)[6][7][8][9][10] had two excellent opportunities to tell us if they have a problem with creation science at https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/ and https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/ so maybe my earlier "The two are really the exact same thing, marketed to different audiences" emphasis, which I believe can also be supported by multiple secondary reliable sources, might be the way to go.
I am completely open to whatever the consensus is on this. I have been studying and quoting a primary source (AiGs website) because an organizations' own words are reliable on the topic of what the organization believes, but if we get into a comparison with other creationist organizations and whether they are essentially the same or fundamentally different, we need to cite secondary sources that address that specific question. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Far too often, Wikipedia editors violate WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH when they edit an article of a YEC organization/person/movie/book/etc. to "show" the reader that YEC is "pseudoscience" -- problem is, the sources/wording they add usually don't say/prove that the article subject itself promotes pseudoscience, but only that YEC is pseudoscience. This shouldn't be the case -- if something like this is going to be added, it must be a reliable source explicitly stating that AiG (in this case) itself promotes pseudoscience. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:PSCI is policy, so "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." WP:MNA is part of the same policy, and on that basis we don't have to hash out every time that creation science is pseudoscience. AiG has roots in creation science, so we could cover that aspect, but I'd like to see a good third party evaluation of whether they promote creation science pseudoscience, and if their basis in creationist revelation is distinct from creationist pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I made a reasonable effort to find such a third party evaluation, but as WP:PARITY explains, "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." So I see a lot of mentions that we wouldn't accept as reliable sources. Examples: Rational Wiki says "Answers in Genesis (AiG), headed by Ken Ham, is a Christian apologetics ministry which pushes 'creation science'. They run (into the ground it would seem) the Creation "Museum" and Ark Encounter theme-parks in Kentucky."[11] And Skepdic says "One of the main leaders of creation science [is] are Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis"[12] Even wikiquote has "Once again, creation science advocate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis..." but the source they quote is Old Earth Ministries, a competing creationist group. This LA times article[13] kind of sort of links the two, but it isn't a solid link. None of these are good sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
To be clear (which my earlier post wasn't), I did not mean to suggest using Rational Wiki as a source, I meant looking at the references they've used for something suitable. EdChem (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That's how I understood it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential sources

Found a couple of reasonable sources, same author but well qualified and NCSE is a good publisher. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • "The Anti-Museum". NCSE. 26 February 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2019. an account of some of the outrageous and remarkable pseudoscience presented by Answers in Genesis (AIG)
  • "Kentucky Gets an Ark-Shaped Second Creation "Museum"". NCSE. 20 October 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2019. Many in the scientific community tend to think that Answers in Genesis only promotes misinformation to a small fundamentalist segment of Christians, but the examples of jaw-dropping crank pseudoscience ....

Doesn't equate AiG to creation science, but decent sources for pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Alas, this looks like a case where WP:OR tells me the answer (AiG savagely attacks various other varieties of creationist as heretics who are misleading the flock, AiG speaks glowingly of creation science, skeptical sources say they are the same, other brands of creationism and non-creationist Christians say they are the same) but no independent reliable secondary source appears to have ever covered this detail. So it looks like the article should stay silent on whether AiG is the same as creation science. We have to follow the sources, not our OR. (Guy starts muttering "Eppur si muove!" under his breath...) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Now there is an interesting thought! It is "the sky is blue" obvious and undisputed that AiG believes and indeed shouts from the rooftops that everything was created by the Christian God. And that they really like everything creation science teaches. We also have pretty strong evidence that creation science purposely downplays any mention of any god in order to not run afoul of separation of church and state. Creation science claims to be based 100% on science. They say they looked at science with an unbiased eye and concluded -- without the religion that every creation scientist belongs to even crossing their mind -- that conventional science is wrong and their alternative theories are right. They say that the fact that they came to the exact same conclusions as more openly Christian groups like AiG is a total coincidence. Does that mean that it is "sky is blue" obvious that AiG is the same thing as creation science? I would like to see what the consensus is on that. In am pretty sure that I could post an RfC and get overwhelming support for calling them the same thing, but a lot of that would be because so many people are pissed off with creationists trying to get public schools to teach religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You'll need sources, not an RfC. Creation science is indeed the strategy of claiming scientific credence, but still explicitly basing arguments on the Bible and Genesis – that failed in court, hence ID doesn't mention the Bible (much). The "sky is blue" to an evolutionist materialist is the outcome of physics, to AiG it's a divine color choice – see the second museum source above for rainbow as a sign as evidence that God changed the physics of light at the end of the Fludde. More important for this article, there's a fork in creationism between AiG, based [purely?] on revelation, and creation science/ID with their strategy of claiming support from science, even when it means redefining science. . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Subhead: fork in creationism

Is there any evidence for this "fork in creationism" actually existing as opposed to them being the exact same thing marketed to different audiences? Are there any examples anywhere of
  • Biblical creationists such as AiG criticizing or disagreeing with creation scientists?
  • Biblical creationists such as AiG criticizing or disagreeing with intelligent design proponents?
  • Creation scientists criticizing or disagreeing with biblical creationists such as AiG?
  • Creation scientists criticizing or disagreeing with intelligent design proponents?
  • Intelligent design proponents criticizing or disagreeing with Biblical creationists such as AiG?
  • Intelligent design proponents criticizing or disagreeing with creation scientists?
Keep in mind that none of these groups have the slightest hesitation criticizing old-earth creationists. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

On the fork, which may not be the best term, Ronald L. Numbers (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-0-674-19312-3. and a variation in Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. pp. 269–273. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. synonymous tags 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' .... signified a major tactical shift among strict six-day creationists. ... Instead of appealing to the authority of the Bible, as John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Morris had done in launching the creationist revival, they downplayed the Genesis story in favor of emphasizing the scientific aspects of creationism

From Gary B. Ferngren (August 2002). Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. JHU Press. pp. 286–. ISBN 978-0-8018-7038-5. By 1974, Morris was recommending that creationists ask public schools to teach 'only the scientific aspects of creationism', which in practice meant leaving out all references to Genesis and Noah's ark . . dave souza, talk 12:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As for criticisms between groups, perhaps you've not looked at intelligent design#Reaction from other creationist groups. . . dave souza, talk 12:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"A Visit to the New Creation "Museum"". NCSE. 7 March 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2019. Which creationism? As a close follower of young-earth creationism, I was curious about many subtle aspects of the presentation. Most observers are hardly aware of the striking conflicts among creationists, both in terms of their beliefs and their presentation styles. . . dave souza, talk 12:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Subhead: brands of creationism

For definitions of the "brands of creationism," try this reference:
Ross, M.R., 2005. Who believes what? Clearing up confusion over intelligent design and young-Earth creationism. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), pp.319-323.
Ross (2005) states "Answers in Genesis, another major YEC organization, has been more open to limited cooperation (Wieland 2002)." Paul H. (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That's cooperation between ID and AiG. The proposed hierarchy is a bit out of date, see Eugenie C. Scott (3 August 2009). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-26187-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) which on p. 64 has a "continuum" diagram adapted in a way that meets Ross's objection. Haven't checked if it discusses AiG. . . dave souza, talk 07:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Ross's paper tries to differentiate between them but what Ross doesn't do is differentiate between what they are and or what they believe and what they preach. He dismisses the many sources that discuss things like "creationism in disguise", "neo-creationism", and "stealth creationism" and assumes that what the ID crowd claims to be is what they actually are. But in their own literature they say that they are purposely not defining the intelligent designer in order to make their position more acceptable in public schools. Finally Ross appears to assume from the fact that most ID proponents say nothing one way or the other about the age of the earth that they must be old-earth creationists. But there are plenty of ID proponents who argue for a young earth:[14]
I find https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/intelligent-des-11.html to be a more accurate depiction of what I have read in the creationist literature than Ross. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Amusing as Pandas' brief 2005 list is, Scott 2009 is more nuanced. . . dave souza, talk 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolution: Biblical and scientific creationism

This discussion preceded comments at Talk:Young Earth creationism#Looking through some sources (permanent link) where the following source came up:

  • "The Tenets of Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, July 01, 1980". icr.org. – which states Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, 1) is Scientific creationism (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model), 2) is Biblical creationism (no reliance on scientific data, using only the Bible to expound and defend the creation model), and 3) is Scientific Biblical creationism (full reliance on Biblical revelation but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation model). Choice to depend on where the "form" is being used, but all clearly religious. small print at foot "All the genuine facts of science support Biblical creationism and all statements in the Bible are consistent with scientific creationism."

So, the "#Subhead: fork in creationism" really describes parallel presentations of the same ideas by the same people, leaving out the Bible or science to suit the audience.
Remember, scientific creationism is another name for creation science. In the case of AiG, their basic message is clearly Biblical creationism, but they don't hesitate to veer into Scientific Biblical creationism or creation science. Creation Science lists articles starting with Creation Science Is Real Science which links to an article titled Real Scientists, Really?. Further down, Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists includes Prediction 3: Radiohalos in Sandstones by AiG employee Andrew A. Snelling, a paper in "Answers Research Journal", "Funding was provided by the Institute for Creation Research" so tied in with the usual creation science source. Primary sources, but as NCSE notes of the AiG Museum, "Creationism is thereby presented as a legitimate alternative science rather than a non-science or anti-science perspective. This represents a simple but powerful harmony for those trying to reconcile Christian doctrine with science." So that's a secondary source. . . . dave souza, talk 13:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is very insightful; thanks a lot for your research. However, based on the information that you have provided, AiG is best described by either 1) Biblical creationism (as you point out) or 3) Scientific Biblical creationism. The only justification for 3) so far is AiG Museum's "scientific" theme. Whichever one it is, though, I still hold the position that "support" is the most appropriate word to use in relation to creation science. They may back their biblical ideas up using creation science (e.g. as in the case of the Museum), but it isn't their underlying message or aim or something that they promote on a regular basis. Therefore, I'd say that to claim that AiG "promote" creation science would be original research.OlJa 14:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence editing by jps and Roxy the dog

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I can't believe what is happening. I, and a lot of other editors, have literally spent a month trying to find the best way to phrase the lead sentence. We've had 4 long conversations and involved a large number of editors. Any edit that would be made during the discussion would be reverted. I've tried to implement one of the most popular changes proposed by EdChem, which seemed (keyword: seemed; don't accuse me of falsely claiming consensus) to have gained some degree of consensus, with at least 3 editors supportive of the version and none against. And then, out of nowhere, comes jps and starts forcing his own version, which he hasn't even attempted (!) to discuss on the talk, in spite of all the tremendous amount of conversation that we've mustered up over the last month. To make matters worse, I tried discussing this issue with them, but they just ignored that message. Not only that, they reverted my attempt not even to restore the status quo, as the vast majority of editors did here to my edits, but my attempt at a compromise! After this revert, I decided to restore the version before I even added EdChem's version, which should be considered a self-revert, as this was the only thing I could do which would avoid starting an edit war. And, come to think of it, out of nowhere yet comes Roxy the dog and reverts my self-revert and accuses me of edit-warring! Restoring a version that not only has absolutely no consensus but also one which hasn't even been attempted to have been discussed! Someone needs to step in and help me out. The editing by both jps and Roxy the dog is disruptive, but the latter's edits are bordering on WP:VANDALISM.OlJa 14:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • No, they're not vandalism, and you're edit-warring. Stop now, please. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused as to how you as an admin always tend to jump to conclusions without even taking the time to understand what's going on. I have literally only made one revert, which was a self-revert, and you are accusing me of edit-warring. You are also condoning forcing an edit with absolutely no consensus. This is not even the first time. Last time, you threatened of blocking me because "I did not attempt discussion", which I very clearly did and provided you with diffs, which you gladly ignored. Shocking behaviour on an admin's part.OlJa 15:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You can say what you wish about me, but anyone reading the revision history of the article will easily be able to spot which editor has caused the article to have had so much activity over last few weeks. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • So now you are blaming me for... causing activity? Seriously? Your comments are seriously concerning. And you are still ignoring the fact that Roxy the dog and jps have been blatantly forcing a version that has no consensus whatsoever.OlJa 15:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm quite happy to leave it for another administrator to consider if the edit-warring continues. I think what I've said has been quite clear. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oldstone James, you have once again started edit warring. Here are the diffs:[15][16] How many reverts do you count in those diffs? Is it one? or is is two? Clearly you learned nothing from your block, and clearly you learned nothing from the fact, which I documented at Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 7#Let's review the wonderful things we have accomplished! that edit warring accomplishes nothing.
BTW, If you think Black Kite "Jumps to conclusions without even taking the time to understand what's going on", file a report at WP:ANI and his handling of the edit warring on this page will be examined. But be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Look at what that revert is. It's a self-revert. Also, you wittily avoided commenting on how your friend Roxy happened to reinstate an edit twice with no consensus - I guess that's not edit-warring at all. I was not trying to accomplish anything here - I was trying to prevent Roxy the dog and jps from edit-warring. I don't have the time to file a report, and I'm pretty sure simply jumping to conclusions would not warrant any further action - especially against an admin. Also, please don't try to nurture me in this manner; it comes across as derogatory.OlJa 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
If then, as you claim, ANI doesn't take action against admins when there is a legitimate complaint against them, how do you explain Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked for a mean comment made a decade ago? and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Enigmaman?
Re: "I don't have the time to file a report", perhaps you could free up enough time by not edit warring and not posting 60 messages to Talk:Answers in Genesis in 9 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about the lede

Latest comment: 5 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates Young Earth creationism and a literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects results of scientific investigations that contradict their view of the Bible's creation narrative and supports the pseudoscience of creation science as an alternative. The organization sees evolution as incompatible with the Bible and believes anything other than the young Earth view is a compromise on the principle of biblical inerrancy.

This is the lede as currently written. Are there any particular issues here that are problematic? Please identify them below.

One issue that was mentioned is that Oldstone James wants to say, in the second sentence, that AiG advocates for a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis before pointing out that they advocate for YEC. I think that the main notability of AiG is their advocacy of YEC. To that end, it makes sense to say this sooner rather than later, IMHO. Other than that, what other complaints are there?

jps (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

First two sentences work ok, the third gets mixed up between "it" and "their", then wanders on to creation science as a pseudoscientific alternative without clarity what it's an alternative to. Propose:
From belief in biblical inerrancy, AiG interprets the Bible's creation narrative as literal facts about the origins of the universe, and rejects any contrary results from scientific investigations. Instead, AiG presents the pseudoscience of creation science as truthful.
Fourth sentence seems to to miss AiG's central points: that teaching of evolution is an evil producing cultural decay, Genesis describes the proper way to organize society, and all-out culture war against atheistic humanism.[17]
The organization holds that teaching of evolution is an evil which damages society, and presents Genesis as a proper guide to social morality.
That covers the main two, not sure about adding the third. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the current version. This one makes the assumption that AiG's interpretation is perfectly literal, which is untrue, as, e.g., AiG do not believe that the Earth is flat.OlJa 00:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I like your version, Dave. jps (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
"the pseudoscience of creation science" is a rather jarring repetition of "science". Maybe "pseudoscientific creation science" is slightly better. I'd also be tempted to use quotes around "creation science", but I'm not sure if this jibes with the MOS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with this, too. jps (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the above proposed changes. Just throwing out an idea that may suck, how about
...and supports "creation science" as an alternative to scientific knowledge.
I think this gets the same point across as the use of the term pseudoscience and avoids the clumsy repetition of science. I also think that this is a great place to use scare quotes to get across the idea that creation science is to science what fool's gold is to gold or tofu bacon is to bacon. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't like this version. Creation science and scientific knowledge still have rare overlaps. This version rules out the possibility of such. Also, as pointed out, scare quotes are not advised. Creation science is now a specific term used even by opponents, so embedding it in scare quotes isn't necessary. There are numerous examples of terms which mean something that contradicts their implications. OlJa 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The scare quotes imply creation science is not a widely-used term. On the contrary, it is widely known and used, thus, scare quotes are inappropriate here. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. First, the quotes have nothing to do with frequency of use, but rather with the appropriateness of the term to describe the concept. As in 'the thieves "liberated" several barrels of whisky'. And secondly, creation science is really only used in a very very small community. There is precedent in reliable sources for its use with scarce quotes, e.g. here--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be appropriate to word this sentence matter-of-factly so that scare quotes aren't needed? As for your "liberate" example, it would be much better just to say "the thieves stole several..." -- the term creation science is commonly used, from the U.S. Supreme Court (in more than one decision, I think) to people arguing against YEC, to academia, in addition to YECers. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I think quotes around "creation science" would be inappropriate. Quotes belong around quotations; using them in this case would count as "scare quotes". Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that they are scare quotes, but I contend that this is one of those few situations where scare quotes are appropriate. Consider Stephan Schulz's 'the thieves "liberated" several barrels of whisky' example. Imagine for the sake of argument that we could not remove the "liberated" because we wanted to wikilink to our article on a group that calls itself the Whisky Liberation movement. That would be another place where scare quotes would be appropriate. MOS:SCAREQUOTES does not say that we cannot use scare quotes. It says that they should be considered carefully because scare quotes can imply that a given point is inaccurate (which is exactly what we want to imply here; "creation science" isn't science like "liberating" whisky isn't liberation). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Good points, but looking at the links highlights that some of them are redirects to science so overlinking. Another try;

AiG interpret the Bible's creation narrative literally, as a statement of facts about the origins of the universe. Because of their belief in biblical inerrancy, AiG reject any findings of scientific methodology that contradict their views on Creation, and instead support their beliefs with pseudoscientific creation science. The organization holds that teaching of evolution is an evil which damages society, and presents Genesis as a proper guide to social morality.

Probably needs more checking and wordsmithing, .... dave souza, talk 19:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to quibble, but the phrasing "interpret[s] the Bible's creation narrative literally" is not my favorite. It seems to imply there is a clear and obvious literal reading, which I would say is not necessarily the case. I would prefer "AiG [believes in/subscribes to/posits a] literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, seeing it as a statement of facts about . . . ." Just a thought. Cheers, all. 21:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Completely right, have tried below to be clear that it's a literal interpretation, not sure if we need to get more explicit in the opening. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Good point. The old-earth creationists also say that they interpret the Bible's creation narrative literally. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, just lately read Thomas Chalmers#Gap creationism – "We can allow geology the amplest time . . . without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record". . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Dumuzid, but I simply prefer the current version over yours, as it appears to be more concise. I do like your second sentence, though. I think we could also squeeze their third central point in there, too, about encouraging Christians to combat atheism.OlJa 01:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Concise is good, we're trying to make this more informative. Point 3 maybe best discussed in the next section, meanwhile here's a tightened version. . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates Young Earth creationism and a literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis which presents the Bible's creation narrative as an inerrant factual description. AiG defends this by rejecting scientific methodology, and instead gives credence to pseudoscientific creation science.

Can you describe what problem you are solving by modifying the current version? Your proposal appears to say the same thing as the current version - just in a slightly different way. I still have problems with this wording, but I don't think specifying them would be relevant if the current version if fine, too. I do believe, however, that adding something like "...and the belief that the Bible is the factual and infallible basis for all truth" would help clarify what AiG's views are, if that's what you're on to.OlJa 13:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This version of Dave's reads more smoothly and cleanly to me, but YMMV. I prefer it to the one currently in the article. jps (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ken Ham and creation science

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

This is regarding this edit:[18]

I went to the source to see which word it supports and found this:

From The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America (2017) edited by Paul Gutjahr, Oxford University Press:

"Ham never shared the goal of the CRS or the ICR of developing a science of young earth creationism. Instead his focus was always on spreading a simple three-pronged message that the teaching of evolution was evil and that it produced terrific cultural decay, that the first eleven chapters of Genesis spoke directly and literally about about the origins of the universe as well as the proper way to organize society, and that true Christians should join earnestly in an all-out culture war for the soul of America against atheistic humanism."

What wording best reflects what is in the source? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

For info; the source as cited in the article is ref name="Trollinger" Trollinger, Susan L.; Trollinger, Jr., William Vance (2017). "Chapter 31:The Bible and Creationism". In Gutjahr, Paul (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 223–225. ISBN 9780190258856. . . dave souza, talk 07:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
(Let's put our conflict to one side for this discussion, please) Correct me if I am wrong, Guy, but I think you have at some point admitted that we can't equate AiG with creation science. Furthermore, user:Dave souza not only appeared to agree with you, but he also (imo rightly) reverted my edit which said that AiG promote creation science ([19]). Honestly, I would be fine with the word "promote" if that's what they had done and if reliable sources had used either this word or similar; however, they appear to be promoting other things, listed by Trollinger, merely supporting creation science, and the lack of "creation science" in such lists as the one composed by Trollinger only allude to this fact. Also, I would like some consistency: originally, the article preference was split between "support" (and distinctly not "promote") and "promote". Then I changed it to "promote", but the change got reverted. Through the process of elimination, I decided to then change the article preference to "support", but now that's being reverted. Of course, it can't both "promote" and "support but not promote", so we need to settle on one of these. My vote as of right now is for "support", but that will change as soon as an RS justifies the use of "promote".OlJa 12:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
See #Resolution: Biblical and scientific creationism above: AiG primarily promote Biblical creationism, but also claim scientific validity and both present and fund creationist pseudoscientific research, though their main focus is on Biblical arguments. Where they differ from classic creation science is that in public school classrooms and courtrooms it tried to hide its Biblical basis. . . dave souza, talk 13:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Correct me if I am wrong, Guy, but I think you have at some point admitted that we can't equate AiG with creation science", my opinion was and still is that biblical creationism (AiG) is the same as creation science, and both are the same as intelligent design -- but that they are marketed to different audiences.

Biblical creationism is marketed to fundamentalist Christians who believe that when the bible and science disagree the bible is always right.

Creation science is marketed to school boards and government agencies who believe that the religious aspects of biblical creationism violate the constitution if taught in schools.

Intelligent design is marketed to intellectuals who mostly reject any religion out of hand.

Nonetheless the three groups are 100% identical as far as what they believe.

Keeping in mind that AiG has no problem at all with publicly disagreeing with anyone (from old-earth creationists to evolutionists) who disagrees with their beliefs, the best evidence that biblical creationism, creation science, and intelligent design are the exact same belief marketed to different audiences is the glowing agreement each group publishes concerning the beliefs of the other two groups.

Are there any examples anywhere of...

  • Biblical creationists such as AiG criticizing or disagreeing with creation scientists?
  • Biblical creationists such as AiG criticizing or disagreeing with intelligent design proponents?
  • Creation scientists criticizing or disagreeing with biblical creationists such as AiG?
  • Creation scientists criticizing or disagreeing with intelligent design proponents?
  • Intelligent design proponents criticizing or disagreeing with Biblical creationists such as AiG?
  • Intelligent design proponents criticizing or disagreeing with creation scientists?

No. There are not. You can find an occasional mild disagreement about what should be emphasized (reflecting the differences in marketing) but try to find a single core belief that one group holds and one of the other groups rejects. You won't find one, because what they actually believe is identical in every way. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, this is wandering into WP:NOTAFORUM discussion, I've linked to evidence above of differences between creationists. What you're saying isn't supported by the source this section is discussing, which highlights a distinctive aspect of AiG. Good sourcing is needed for any claim that they're 100% the same, not unsourced speculation. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The source does not say anything one way or the other concerning the actual beliefs of the three groups. It says "Ham never shared the goal of the CRS or the ICR of developing a science of young earth creationism. Instead his focus was always on..." If the sources say nothing regarding a claim, Wikipedia should say nothing regarding the claim. If the sources specifically say that they have different beliefs (not just different goals, focus, or emphasis), Wikipedia should say that. If the sources say that the beliefs are the same, Wikipedia should say that. (Primary sources -- the websites of the various organizations -- are clear in saying that they share the same basic beliefs and support what each other are trying to accomplish, but primary sources alone do not satisfy WP:V regarding a claim like this one.)
The article as it is is fine. It doesn't make any specific claims regarding whether the three groups do or do not have the same beliefs. Primary sources say that they do, but until a reliable secondary source covers this particular detail we are right to say nothing. Oldstone James wants us to insert a claim about that they are not the same set of beliefs, and incorrectly claimed that I support that. I do not. I support the article saying nothing unless a reliable secondary sourc directly supports it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Our page at Creation science lists Answers in Genesis as a "proponent" of Creation Science (along with CRS and ICR). Would that language be acceptable? Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That would be perfect as far as I am concerned, as it makes no claim on whether AiG promote creation science or not. It just says that they support it, and the fact that they support it is confirmed by AiG themselves. Guy Macon believes that the article currently makes no claim as it is, but this belief is clearly false: thanks to Calton, the article currently states, "Ken Ham did not share the interest of other groups promoting creation science", implying that AiG is one of those groups. Furthermore, he also claims that I want "us to insert a claim about that they are not the same set of beliefs". In fact, I want the opposite, and I still think I was right in claiming that you want the opposite, too (once again, correct me if I am wrong).OlJa 21:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Guy, the marketing differences are an interesting perspective and a potentially useful way of overviewing the similarities and differences within the broader creationist perspectives, but of course have no place in WP without solid sourcing. Your position that they are identical is not consistent with my understanding, though of course neither of our understanding is a basis for WP content... but perhaps you are suggesting that they are functionally identical (in terms of what they seek to achieve) rather than actualy being the same? On the substantive content question, thanks to Dave for presenting a source for use, and perhaps we should take a few days to see if other sources are located and then add a sub-section here to discuss the article content while minimising the forum discussions? EdChem (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable, and of course I agree that while we can talk about that we think AiG is and why, the article has to be based on sources.
I would like to explain what I mean by "the same". I am talking about their underlying beliefs. For example, they all believe that the Bible is 100% true. They all believe in the Christian God. Some of them purposely don't talk about the Bible or God, but we know from internal documents referenced at Wedge strategy ("Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate... Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy...") that they still believe that the Bible is 100% true and in the Christian God.
You can go down the list of beliefs and find that all three groups agree on the age of the earth, who the creator is, whether the Bible is infallible, the Trinity, Justification, Liberal Christianity, Biblical hermeneutics, Penal substitution, the relationship between Infused righteousness, Imparted righteousness and Imputed righteousness, the Last Judgment, Sola fide, Salvation... On every single theological question that divides Christian groups from each other the three groups have 100% identical beliefs. They are about as different from each other as Dianetics and Scientology are.
Again, this is easy to verify through primary sources (all three groups are very forceful in denouncing any christian group that disagrees with them on any point of belief, but never denounce each other) but it isn't something that any secondary source other than the occasional skeptic's blog cares about enough to comment on. So, lacking sources, we should say nothing. The only reason I am even bothering to talk about this is because Oldstone James wants the article to say that they have different beliefs and (as he often does) incorrectly asserted that there is consensus for that claim, listing me as one who supports it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So, I find myself coming down more or less on Guy's side of this; while it's true that Answers in Genesis may not see its role as advancing the 'research' of "creation science," according to the local news they practice creation science[20], and they do a "thriving business" in "creation science materials"[21]. It has also been reported that "Ham wants creation science to be a part of the curriculum [of public schools]"[22], and a member of staff at Answers in Genesis complains that while he has "pleaded with evolutionists to read AiG’s literature," "[t]hey’re so biased . . . that they don’t even want to consider the arguments of creation science."[23] With all due respect to those involved, I don't particularly see a meaningful distinction here. We could take Bill Nye, Mr. Ham's foil, and say that while he doesn't really advance mainstream science via research, he nevertheless supports and promotes it. I'd say Mr. Ham of Answers in Genesis is in a similar position vis-a-vis "creation science." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the quote "AiG does a thriving business selling... Creation science materials" alone is enough evidence for the use of "promote" to be justifiable, and hence for me to change my stance on the matter. However, if we are to opt for the usage of this word, we should be consistent in doing so throughout the article, as, otherwise, confusion may arise (also see the 5 Cs of WP:CE). At this point, the article jumps from "support" to "promote", which may make the reader confused as to whether the promotion of creation science is part of their activity or not. Also, assuming that Guy Macon hasn't read my previous comment, I will say this again: I do NOT want the article to say that they have different sets of beliefs, and, to be perfectly candid, I have no idea how Guy even came to that conclusion. If anything, I actually share his opinion that we should avoid making a claim if it's not explicitly backed up by reliable sources, and, up until Dumuzid's comment, I believed the promotion of creation science on AiG's part to be one such claim. However, the extract from the WCPO article has managed to convince me otherwise: I now believe that the use of "promote" is perfectly justifiable, but, once again, we need to be consistent.OlJa 13:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Answers_in_Genesis/Archive_8&oldid=1061622891"