Talk:Answers in Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Ken Ham and creation science[edit]

This is regarding this edit:[1]

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 ([2]). 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[3], and they do a "thriving business" in "creation science materials"[4]. It has also been reported that "Ham wants creation science to be a part of the curriculum [of public schools]"[5], 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."[6] 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)

A word to the wise[edit]

Let's put this aside for now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

James, a word to the wise. As you well know, your behaviour on this page is currently under discussion at AN/I. At the moment as I read it the likely outcome of that discussion is that you will be topic banned from creationism articles, probably broadly construed, if it follows the usual form of these things. In the meantime you continue to battle away here. Stop it now. Stop making any edits to the article and withdraw from discussion on this talk page. If you ignore this warning and continue, you stand a really good chance of being indeffed, rather than merely topic banned. I think the chances of you escaping unsanctioned are now close to zero. Take my advice and salvage what you can of your repitation while you still can. - Nick Thorne talk 12:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what to expect from Wikipedia anymore, as I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning). I honestly won't be surprised if I get indeffed without warning, too, straight after my topic ban is imposed, for two/three reverts of edits with no consensus. So I don't know how seriously I shall take your warning. Either way, advising me to refrain from even participating on talk pages, which is exactly the thing I was advised to do to avoid a topic ban, seems a bit unreasonable. Although, once again, unreasonable does not mean it shouldn't be followed, as I have come to learn. I don't know which advice to follow, as every advice I was given is contradicted by at least one other advice I was also given, which means that no matter which advice I choose to follow, I will always be in the wrong. I was first advised to follow WP:BRD; then, when I did, I was accused of editing without consensus, and now my following of it is being cited as one of the reasons why I should be topic-banned; I was then advised to gain consensus for any change that I make, and, when I did, I was accused of stirring action, and my edit was repeatedly reverted in favour of an edit with no consensus, me being (in hindsight, perhaps rightly, but my intention was to self-revert) accused of edit-warring. And now, when I stopped edit-warring or stirring any action and instead restrict myself exclusively to the talk page, I am accused of battling away. You see, there is no way out. If a group of "experienced editors" decide that you are not worthy of editing on a certain topic, they will oust you from it, no matter the manner in which you edit. This will remain the only lesson I will have learnt from the situation until someone coherently and understandingly explains to me why my editing warrants a topic ban, while user:Roxy the dog's and user:Guy Macon's editing is exemplary or, if not that, in any way condonable.OlJa 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, compared to your editing, my editing is exemplary. That's why you have made 3000 edits and have been blocked four times, with a topic ban in your near future, whereas I have made 45,000 edits over a 12 year period and have never been blocked. I even wrote an essay for people in your situation: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, that isn't a good explanation, is it. Even before your reply, I knew that you think your editing is exemplary when compared to mine; you saying that again doesn't give me any new information. What I'd like to know is why you think that - despite the fact that you seem to be violating many more WP policies than I do.OlJa 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I will have probably gotten topic-banned without any warning for exactly the same reasons that I got blocked for a week (also without warning)
Sure, no warnings whatsever about edit-warring, unless you count this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this. Or when you edit-warred about football, like this. Or advice like this, or this. --Calton | Talk 15:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Calton, would you please explain this revert of yours? What is the problem with the hyphen that you removed? Why did you leave an edit summary that reflects on Oldstone James rather than commenting on the change you are making. Oldstone James, why did you use the edit summary that you did when adding the hyphen? It seems to me to not relate to your edit. Also, please don't revert Calton again, no matter what. EdChem (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I used the edit summary that I did to point out that the previous revert by user:Calton was against what some other users thought: that "promoted" should not be used as a word when talking about creation science. I decided to add a hyphen because that seemed to be the most minor, insignificant, and uncontroversial change that I could think of that would actually improve the article. Unfortunately, null edits don't seem to be working anymore, so this was the closest to a null edit I could come up with. Once again, though, my edits were reverted because it was me who made the edit, as was the case with my previous grammatical corrections, although this time the editor was open about this. But, as I said, the most important feature of the edit was the edit-summary.OlJa 17:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
He was just tidying up the mess made by your potential protégé making a null edit. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Both of those edit summaries are way out of line, but in different ways. An edit summary should be an accurate and neutrally worded description of the edit.
Related: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#An amusement park with a Noah's Ark theme is... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy – useful to get outside input. EdChem (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Calton's edit is not a null edit, it is removing a hyphen from "Noah's Ark-themed", changing it to "Noah's Ark themed". And if it had been a null edit, there would be no reason to revert it... particularly with an edit summary that is basically a personal attack. I don't know why OJ used the edit summary he did when adding the hyphen, which is why I asked, and I don't know why Calton reverted the addition. I do know that neither OJ having made a mess at times nor OJ being a PITA are justification for reverted an edit he made unless that edit is actually damaging to the article or against consensus, etc. EdChem (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll say it again, He was just tidying up the mess made by your potential protégé making a null edit. Please read carefully. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And I'll repeat: neither OJ's edit nor Calton's revert was a null edit, nor were either of them dummy edits. OJ added a hyphen, Calton removed it. OJ used an edit summary that seems unrelated to the edit, Calton's edit summary was a personal attack on OJ, and Guy Macon's summary that both "are way out of line" seems pretty accurate to me. You might want to read WP:NULL closely, by the way, as a null edit does not allow an edit summary to be saved which proves neither of these could be a null edit. Finally, if you have some problem with me or something I've done, please raise it directly. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
would you please explain this revert of yours? What is the problem with the hyphen that you removed?
Nothing. The answer to your question is that I screwed up: I thought I was reverting a different edit. I'm sorry for complicating things unnecessarily. --Calton | Talk 02:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Calton, thank you for your response and I am glad to hear that it was just an error. May I suggest that a less confrontational edit summary would have been helpful? In any case, mistakes happen and it is great when something turns out to be a simple mistake and nothing more. Regards, EdChem (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
EdChem, I have a problem with interpretation of the two edits inserting and removing the null colon that was used by James so he could introduce the snarky edsum. I was just pointing it out. Your interpretation is different to mine, that's all. Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Roxy, I would also have a problem with any editor "inserting and removing the null colon ... so he could introduce the snarky edsum." If OJ has done that, I am quite willing to state that it is inappropriate. If, however, you are talking of the hyphen, I don't think we have only a difference in interpretation as I think your facts are in error. OJ added the hyphen, which was appropriate. It was removed by Calton who has stated that that edit was a mistake. It has now been replaced with an ndash following advice at talk:MOS by Guy Macon. So, OJ made no null edit nor any dummy edit (which is what I think you mean), and the substantive edit that he did make was an improvement to the article. As for the edit summary, I thought it was a copy-and-paste error but OJ's explanation has shown otherwise. It was an inappropriate summary as it did not actually summarise the edit being made and it was, as you say, snarky – it would not have been an appropriate summary to include in the edit history by way of a dummy edit even if it had been a dummy edit, which it was not. I have already posted to OJ's talk making this point, and have yet to check for any response, but I did suggest that a talk page post would have been a better choice as would copyediting it. Oldstone James, what is your current view of the edit summary that you left on the edit adding the hyphen? EdChem (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A proposal: Oldstone James is pretty much certain to be topic banned, blocked, or mentored and thus is unlikely to use an edit summary on a minor typo fix as a soapbox again. Carlton admits made a mistake and didn't realize that he was reverting a minor typo fix (an error made more likely by the typo fix mot being properly labeled in the edit summary) and is unlikely to make the same mistake again. Carlton is unlikely to use a WP:NPA edit summary like "It's not that I don't trust you ... wait, I don't trust you" again. I hope that Roxy will dial it down a bit and not write things like "your potential protégé" again (further discussion won't change the odds of that happening) and is extremely unlikely to misidentify a null edit or dummy edit again. Because of all of these things, I propose that we stop talking about this, let everyone involved save face, let this comment be the last one, and collapse or archive this thread 48 hours after the last comment is posted. If you agree, please do nothing and go back to figuring out how this page should best reflect what is in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversial Edit Suggestion[edit]

I know many of you higher-up editors on this page don't like AiG & creationism, so I'd like to run this by you guys first to avoid another nasty edit war and inadvertently undoing all the good work that has been done so far.
Do you think this edit makes sense?
From this: Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of those scientific investigations that contradict their view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead supports pseudoscientific creation science.
To this: Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of those scientific investigations that contradict their creationist view of the Genesis creation narrative.
Or this: Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of those scientific investigations that contradict their pseudoscientific creationist view of the Genesis creation narrative.

Just feels like it reads better to me, but what do you guys think? Also if you anti-AiGers prefer the second edit suggestion (as you undoubtedly will lol) you will get your "pseudoscientific" claim a little further up in the article. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 13:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not about what I particularly like (or don't!), but I would favor the alternative change. As far as most mainstream sources go, AiG's approach is pseudoscientific, and I think it's important to have that up front. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not about it being pushed up, but rather it reading better overall. Saying "Joe ignores what doesn't align with his worldview, which is nihilism" reads worse than "Joe ignores anything against nihilism". That's the logic I'm trying to follow.
Personally, I don't think this page should even be using a derogatory term like "pseudoscience" to refer to AiG (and FTR there isn't overwhelming consensus about that here either) but a combination of the scientific community at large's rejection of creationism and the majority of high-level editors on the page who agree that it's pseudoscience are why I mentioned that those on the other side might like that claim being bumped up a little bit. Not that I agree with it, nor is the point for it to be more prominent. But I'm not going to start an editing war rn because the majority disagrees with me. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 15:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The reason why I find the original sentence better is all the information it is able to condense (including via its wikilinks). I agree with Dumuzid that it's not a question of pro/anti editors: one doesn't need to be against to understand that it's pseudoscientific or that there are better explanations and mainstream geology and biology is not anti-creationism activism. Moreover, the article text is not supported by our beliefs but by citations to reliable sources. The lead is a bit exceptional in that it must summarize the article's body.
The last suggestion also includes the pseudoscience mention to satisfy WP:PSCI but it is a bit different: it starts with the premise that the pseudoscientific arguments are already established, causing the rejection of scientific evidence. In the first/original sentence, new pseudoscientific arguments or apologetics can be developped to reject new scientific evidence that may contradict the doctrine (and indeed, creationist movements are part of a living tradition). —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Definitely sounds like a better read to me; reads more smoothly and avoids repetition.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience[edit]

I want to know what gives someone the right to call someone else's scientific observations pseudoscience. Seems very biased to me. You have scientists who work for Answers in Genesis and have published work. Stooge78 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and specifically WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia is biased but toward science. And Wikipedia has every right to call pseudoscience pseudoscience if that's what it is. Creation science is pseudoscience. This has been discussed extensively and you can see the discussions relating to this at the various articles that have a link to creation science. You may want to read past discussions - and the ones in the archives before commenting further. No creation scientists have had articles (related to creation science) published in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. Robynthehode (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Evolutionary bias[edit]

Shouldn't say "instead supports pseudoscientific creation science," because it is Opinion. It should say "instead supports creation science which has been considered pseudoscience. Then it would be less biased. WorldQuestioneer (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not opinion. If there was any evidence that the world was only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old. Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation. And yet it's only a select group of Christians and "token" Jews and Muslims, either American or influenced by American evangelical conservatism, who promote these claims. That doesn't make those claims right, as we're not baptized in the name of Ken Ham, nor was he crucified, buried, and resurrected on our behalf. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Answers_in_Genesis&oldid=981476835"