Talk:Answers in Genesis

View on Science

There seems to be some disagreement about the content of the Views on Science section. Is this meant to be AiG's views on science? If so why are AiG not the primary source? What use is it to argue over what some other (hostile) party says that AiG's views are? Also the debated statements seem to be about the mainstream view of AiG's science. They are either in the wrong section, or belong towards the end of the section. After all, it makes sense to explain what AiG's views are before detailing their acceptance/rejection for whatever reason. Yes, yes I know some will cry FRINGE, but in an article/section ABOUT their views, there is no better source for what their views are then AiG themselves. (Actions are another matter).LowKey (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No one is interested in what AiG actually has to say. The purpose of this article, as can be clearly seen, is to ridicule AiG in as many ways as possible. The idea of NPOV is unknown to the editors of this article. Unless it agrees with their view, it cannot be put in the article. There is no such thing as a neutral 3rd-party article about AiG. The nature of the Evolution/Creation debate is that you are one or the other. And Evolutionists have the upper hand by sheer weight of numbers. How can so many be wrong? Ask the Jews in Auschwitz..... Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Epic FAIL! See WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ and Godwin's law. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is NO AGF in this article, it's plain-as-day purpose is to ridicule AiG. The ONLY sources that are allowed and considered verifiable are biased and bigoted NON-Creationary, evolutionary sources. ANY Creationary source is AUTOMATICALLY eliminated as undue-weight and/or fringe and/or OR. That is CENSORSHIP and propagandizing by twisting Policy. Quoting or paraphrasing from Creationary sources is automatically labeled POV, while quoting or paraphrasing from evolutionary sources is NPOV. More bigotry, more censorship. Since Nazism came naturally out of Evolutionism the comparison is apt. Wake up and smell the ordure. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Whew. You are never going to be happy here, it is very clear. If you are going to refuse the possibility of Good Faith in editors with whom you disagree, I don't think you are going to get very far. You clearly, by the way, don't understand what POV and NPOV mean. You're comments about Nazism are not only wrong, they are a bit concerning. Will you please make it clear that you are not calling editors Nazis?

Nazism did come from survival-of-the-fittest Evolutionism, that is a fact. Are other editors Nazis. No. But, the use of sources is selected to give a negative impression, and the exclusion of sources to give a more neutral light, is typical censorship. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic, your bizarre ideas of "facts" don't suggest that you're well placed to know WP:NPOV when you see it. Much as you would like to censor all critical views, that's not how WP works. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hear Hear! WP only censors certain critical views. :) While using Auschwitz as an example above may have been ill-considered, I don't think it was actually comparing WP with Nazis, at least until after the invocation of Godwin's Law. Regardless, can we get back to useful discussion about the "Views on Science" section? Who's views is the section about, and therefore who is the most reliable source for those views? I would say AiG in both cases. The repetitious reminders that they're views are unpopular and the quoting hostile sources to explain AiG's views comes across as case-making and therefore POV. You could probably add "AiG are wrong" as the last sentence of every paragraph and without particularly changing the tone of the article.LowKey (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

<ri> See WP:PSCI – How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly'..... . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So the section is not about AiG's views on science but on the "majority view" of AiG's view? Is it an article about AiG or not? The description of the main views belongs in the articles about the main views. The description of AiG's views should be in this article but IS NOT. Fine; describe it as the minority view that it is, but at least describe the view as it is expressed by those holding and promoting the view. The description is not there, only the rebuttal of the view (or the view on the view, if you will). This exact discussion comes up over & over again, and I am frankly finding it harder and harder to AGF and easier and easier to see the censorship that CS complains about. Why is it so hard to see that the ONLY RS for what a party (any party) THINKS is that party when they tell you what they think? How can that possibly be unfair? You can't fairly describe the dispute about a view until you fairly describe the view that is in dispute.LowKey (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. . dave souza, talk 14:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me as though there are over 50 inline citations to AIG's website. LowKey, how many would be enough for you if 50+ isn't enough? 18 of them are in the Views on science section. And you can't AGF and see censorship? dougweller (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like I was getting a bit over the top there. Apologies. It was late, I was tired, and frustration was leaking through. The statement I am particularly focussed on is the last one in the lead of the section. It uses a third party source to say that AiG reject natural science (a term I have not come across before). The statement has been problematic from the start, being changed around and around, and also being moved about the article. Maybe it should be two statements, one to say what AiG say their view is, and the other to say what the mainstream thinks of this view. I am just getting tired of watching this statement go back and forth repeatedly.LowKey (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aig does not reject science, they instead seperate themselves from idea's such as eugenics, macro-evelotion, cloning, stem cell research, ect. Instead they follow 'Creation Science'. Aig seeks to keep the bible alone (this is very important, since the basis of all they believe in contained therein) as their guide to science, and everything else for that matter. There are very many, credited and well-educated scientists working for Aig, I think a list should be made of them also AiG is most nearly a critic of macro-evolution and uniformatarian 'theories' as it is a promoter of 'Creation Science'. Any critiscims should be kept relevant to the article, and even scientific disputes in general. Thanks! (Estoniankaiju (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

AiG rejects the scientific method, the scientific consensus, geology and palaeontology in their entirety, large chucks of astrophysics and biology, and important foundations of nuclear physics. Given that the existence of macroevolution is a fact (observed both in the lab & in the field), their 'criticism' of it amounts to denialism. In rejected eugenics, they are in fact following in Charles Darwin's own footsteps. 'Creation Science' is a form of pseudoscience, having only the form but not the substance of genuine science. If you don't think some of the criticisms are relevant to AiG and the positions they advocate, then point them out specifically. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Munsters, Fantasia, Nemo, etc.

Part of the article claims that AiG has specifically accused "The Munsters, Lilo & Stitch, Bugs Bunny cartoons, Fantasia, and Finding Nemo" of promoting evolutionary theory. The AiG article listed as a citation for that statement (52) doesn't mention those five titles. In fact, I couldn't find them anywhere on AiG's website. If there is a source for that statement, the citation should be changed, otherwise it will be removed. (note-I read this article and followed the citation out of sheer bored curiosity, I'm not an extremist on either side of the issue)Some kind of scientist (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's contained in earlier versions (e.g. [1][2]) of the cited page. I'll wayback the ref to reflect this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'promoting' and 'assuming' which is what "Fantasia" does.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Bias

This page was obviously written by someone who is not a creationist, which is fine, but they set up AiG's arguments as a scarecrow , and is putting in arguments and fragments of 'evidence' , and are attacked Aig in a very sly way. Much of the content in this article is irrelevant to AiG , the qoute from Charles Dwkins should appear on his article since he is in no way affialiated with AiG. also the financial issues are very minute, even with the 'miscommunication'issues, they still donated more than most other companies their si Many other issues are blown out of control. The issue regarding starlight was legitimate to be in the article, but white hole cosmology addresses many of the problems, if not all. concerns over Earth-dating should be adding, AiG regards them as equally important to macro-evolution. I hope other users want to make this a halfway decent article, I will edit it myself when I have time. I tried to keep a cool head, but if bad users keep stabbing me in the back I will lose good faith. Hoping for teamwork. (Estoniankaiju (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

The relevance of the Richard Dawkins quote is blindingly obvious. 'Concerns' over dating are not specific to AiG (and are in fact more closely associated with ICR & CRS), and have been covered in articles such as Creation geophysics and Objections to evolution. Your claim that "white hole cosmology addresses many of the problems" does not appear to be supported, by the scientific community, or even OECs. I would suggest fewer vague claims and more reliably sourced facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read this but I would like to make a few general comments based on some things I've seen on this topic. I've read the Blind Watchmaker ( or one of his books a long time ago ) and IIRC Dawkins at some point claims that a good designer wouldn't do such and such in designing an eye( I think it was put opaque structures over the photosensors thereby obscuring the light) that is in fact routinely done by human imager designers. There is a general tendency to trivialize everything religious and not actually think about things from scientific sources or use selection bias on both sides of the argument- who was the nobel prize winner screaming about vitamin C as a cure for HIV or cancer? Simply put, all sides are forced to rely on moralizing, speculation and plausibility arguments because history is just not testable.

I haven't read the article but I would defend any interest in describing the out-of-favour views in a way which factually characterizes, without undue adjectives, their own statements. If somehow this becomes a debate on merit- science plausibility versus creationism- try to avoid citing something called "Denialism" since you are the one in denial, I deny that I am in denial ( is this even possibly constructive?).

Science is not sacred :)

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

History most certainly is testable. If I predict due to my theory that a type of creature with certain specific transitional features lived at a certain time period, then finding a fossil with features that closely match my prediction in the particular strata of that time period would be a positive test of history.

Science is not sacred, but denialism exists. I refuse to consider the belief that the cosmos is under 10,000 years old just another opinion. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Community

There is some disagreement about whether or not the scientists at AiG are considered as part of the "scientific community." As one user put in his second revert, "Rvt: they have excluded themselves from the scientific community (to the extent that they were ever part of it), and are part of the Christian apologetics community." I disagree with this conclusion; the "exclusion" as far as I can tell is a matter of merely individual standards and judgment, and the inclusion of "to whatever extent they were ever a part of it" strikes me as rather prejudicial. Further, I do not believe that the two communities mentioned are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that if the scientists working with AiG are reputable and contribute research to peer-reviewed journals, they are part of said scientific community, whether their views on the subject of creation are in the minority of said community or not. As a result, my understanding is that AiG is a part of the scientific community, albeit a vast minority. Are there any further thoughts on this? - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "It seems to me that if the scientists working with AiG are reputable and contribute research to peer-reviewed journals…" Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Further, even if it can be demonstrated that some (or even all) of AiG's meagre list of PhDs has done some legitimate scientific research does not mean that AiG itself is part of the scientific community (any more than a single member of it being a pigeon fancier makes it a member of the pigeon fancying community). AiG is a Christian apologetics ministry, devoted to the promotion of pseudosciences such as Creation science and Flood geology. This clearly places the organisation outside, and in opposition to, the scientific community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. AIG is a strictly religious organization, and certainly not part of the scientific community. Some of the member may be, but do any of the members even publish in reputable peer-reviewed scientific venues? And if they do, do they support AIG positions in those papers or do they segregate science and religion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please excuse the rant, but AIG are simply not part of the scientific community. The only journals they contribute YEC material to are their own journals, which are quite simply an echo-chamber for fellow-travellers. AIG members may well be jobbing scientists (I believe that some YECs are) but their publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature will fit within conventional, evidence-based science. There is certainly no representation of YEC views in scientific journals, even if a small minority of scientists are actually YECs. The resolution to your problem is to simply get the AIG/YEC community to list their publications in boring, mainstream journals. But don't hold your breath. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This page does seem to list scientists who submit articles to peer reviewed journals, and thus are part of "the scientific community;" similarly this page giving a listing of various names. The problem here is arising over a single word: Whether "the pronouncements of AiG are considered psuedoscience among the scientific community" or "among the majority of the scientific community." It's strikingly clear that there are, like it or not, scientists who agree with AiG's positions and who are members of the scientific community. A minority? Certainly. Non-existent? That, to me, seems misleading at best given that it is in an article on the very subject at hand. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the only two 'scientists' listed work for AiG, nor does this article, or a related one linked to it, list any recent scientific publications by them, nor would having a couple of employees on the fringe of the scientific community have made AiG itself part of the scientific community (as I pointed out above), even if they were AiG employees with recent scientific publications. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 22:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the anachronistic interjection. As WickerGuy points out below, the salient point is not that there are YEC scientists (there are a number of these), nor that they publish in scientific journals (which some, I'm sure, do or have done), but that they do not publish their YEC "science" in scientific journals. In fact, flipping it around, that YEC scientists active in publishing research do not publish YEC ideas is a damning indictment of YEC. That is, if trained professionals experienced in both demonstrating their ideas and getting them through peer-review have a separate set of YEC ideas that they do not do the same with, then that tells you a lot about the validity of said YEC ideas. --PLUMBAGO 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that YEC scientists have published in scientific journals, however, they cannot promote YEC ideas in typical scientific journals. Any such paper is automatically censored by all editors. "Expelled" exposed just the tip of the iceberg. NO ONE is ever allowed to question the fact of evolution in any 'scientific' journal. There are plenty of disagreements over HOW evolution happened, but NO ONE ever questions it. Any paper they even hints that it may not be a fact never sees the light of day. That's why Creationism is not publish in "scientific" journals. Creationists publish their own journals peer reviewed by other creationists. Peer review does not mean Creationary papers are or even should be reviewed by evolutionary scientist (who would never seriously review the papers anyway) but reviewed by creationary scientists. The two paradigms are mutually exclusive and to expect creationary papers in standard evolutionary journals is irrational and laughable. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's even difficult to find from their website that even purported "scientists" work there. They have a list of 'creation scientists' -- but it is of 'creation scientists' working everywhere (and none of the first few list an AiG affiliation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems legitimate to claim that the mainstream scientific community (mainstream being a stronger term than majority) overwhelmingly rejects the viewpoint of AiG on grounds of basic issues of methodology!! Science works by consensus-building in peer-reviewed journals, a test of which AiG has not even made a slight scratch in the scientific world.

Often there are two competing points of view when the evidence is ambiguous, but this is not one of those cases. There are for example disagreements among scientists about the scope and nature of 'dark matter', or which model of quantum physics makes the most sense. Controversies exist around the nature of 'black hole' stars, etc.etc.

But while there are still controversies about the exact mechanism that motivates evolution (not all biologists buy Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene theory for example), there really is no controversy in science over whether evolution occurs- this being different different from debates over how it occurs!!! There is not a single article in a peer-reviewed journal that has made a case credible to peer-review disputing evolution. The fact that an accomplished medical surgeon may dispute evolution (I have met one myself personally) is irrelevant. What matters is not a head-count, but an article in a peer-reviewed journal.

--WickerGuy (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)