Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Who Are Those Three Doctorate holders?

I'm interested in finding who the 3 scientists who contribute there are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimnom (talkcontribs) 12:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It says it in the text; Menton, Lisle and Purdom. --Filll (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead vs. History inconsistency

The History section now contradicts the lead paragraphs. I assume the former is correct, and the latter is simply "lagging behind", but I'll leave it to someone more familiar with the details to fix it, lest I inadvertently introduce some further inaccuracy. Alai 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation Ministries International

Does anyone know what is going on with the name? The Canadian office of AiG has replaced its sign with "Creation Ministries International". This site describes CMI as doing all the same things that AiG is doing, including publishing 'Creation' magazine. DJ Clayworth 13:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Due to irreconcilable differences in opinion over certain operating procedures, AiG and AiG International (Australia) split. The parent organisation became CMI. Per the article: In February 2006, Answers in Genesis USA became independent (together with the UK office), retaining the brand name and the website. The Australian office, along with the Canadian, New Zealand and South African branches, rebranded as Creation Ministries International. CMI continues the publication of Creation and Journal of Creation and now has a website under that name. Answers in Genesis publishes books and multimedia resources, as well as a website featuring articles and papers. In June 2006 Answers in Genesis is launching an American alternative to CMI's Creation Magazine, named Creation Answers. It will no longer be distributing the former magazine in America. Answers in Genesis is also expanding into the non-English speaking world with translations and outreach ministry. look here tooPrometheusX303 17:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Answers in Genesis was an umbrella organization for organizations based in Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa. The United States group split off from the rest and appropriated rights to the name and domain name (from the Australian group). The remaining groups have changed their names to Creation Ministries International. For more, see my blog. Lippard 02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version of this entry says *nothing* about the reasons for the AiG/CMI split. That seems like a serious deficiency. Lippard 02:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

there is almost nothing on why they split that is in reliable sources (which is too bad, the elements of the story from what I can tell are quite juicy). JoshuaZ 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The online Christian magazine Christian Faith and Reason briefly comments on the split in a discussion of AiG's new Creation Museum, here. Lippard 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And now CMI has filed a lawsuit against AiG in Australia, which has gotten press: http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21843706-2702,00.html?from=public_rss Lippard 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And: http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/100183.html Lippard 03:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins Interview Consensus?

Hey! Have we finally come to a consensus on the Dawkins section? standonbible 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Refutation of AiG inline

  • User:Robindch: the cite I requested was for the argument itself, not the facts of the argument. Wikipedia policy states that it is not permitted to refute a position without providing a 3rd party source for that refutation. Please take a look at points 5 and 6 of WP:Original Research#What is excluded?. While I don't dispute the accuracy of your argument, WP doesn't allow it. Ashmoo 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Ashmoo: can you tell me exactly what citation is appropriate here in place of the one that I've added? As you're no doubt aware, Ham, along with most creationists, claims that Stalin accepted evolution and that he derived his evil from it. Both claims are untrue, as Stalin rejected evolution for political reasons, and promoted the opposing theory of Lamarck, through his support for Lysenko. Robindch 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who sees this, read below, as Lamarckian theory is a form of evolutionary understanding modernly discredited, as noted below by others. Lysenkoism was a procedural policy of control of science by the state's current ideological dogma.

tooMuchData

18:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->
  • We shouldn't even be getting into 'refuting' an organisation's views while we are in the process of describing them, with or without a cite. Counterarguments belong in the appropriate section. Our purpose here is to describe what AiG believes, not why we think it is wrong. User:DJ Clayworth 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair 'nuf. I've removed that section and inserted it into the 'criticisms' section, together with one other sentence which refutes further false allegations from AiG. Robindch 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The text I've added is neither original nor unverified research, as the conclusion I write is contained within the Wikipedia entry on Lysenko to which I've already linked. Removing my recent edits from the 'criticisms' section (added there as DJ suggested, and you agreed), would also logically require the removal of the remainder of the section's text, together with chunks from 'Controversy over interview with Richard Dawkins', 'Definitions, probability and natural selection', 'The Creation Museum' and elsewhere. To do so would reduce the page to being a facsimile of the AiG website which would be useful for nobody. Robindch 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at points 5 and 6 of WP:Original Research#What is excluded?. Unless a citeable 3rd party has refuted AiG's claims regarding Evolution and Communism by invoking Lysenko, it counts as WP:Original Research. The Richard Dawkins section rightly attributes any criticism to Aust Skeptics.
Having another look through the 'Definitions, prob...' section, it seems like it suffers from unsourced comments too. I'll look into it. Ashmoo 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Added a citable 3rd party which refutes the claim that Stalin accepted evolution. Robindch 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be a pain about this, but the cite provided is about 'Evolution and Chance', not 'Evolution and Communism'. The cite must make the assertion that it is supposedly supporting, not just mention it tangentially.
The give-away in the sentence is the phrase 'AiG's claim ... is rejected since...' . Who rejects it? If you can't say who, it is OR. Ashmoo 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with Ashmoo. To say "it is rejected" is POV since it assumes the point-of-view of those who disagree with AiG. The same applies to the paragraph immediately after the Stalin one. I was about to remove them but I'll wait and see if someone can find an attribution or a cite. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Added link to the author of 3rd party article which refutes the claim that Stalin accepted evolution. (note to Ashmoo + DJ: the refutation is contained within the article text, not the article title). BTW, it is neither OR, nor a point-of-view that Stalin rejected evolution, but a point-of-historical-fact. Robindch 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Lamarkism is a form of evolution, so the question is between Darwinian evolution (which says the main driver of evolution is replication & natural selection) and Lamarkian evolution (which says the main driver is inheritence of acquired traits). Stalin didn't reject evolution, he rejected Darwinian evolution, is favour of pseudo-Lamarkian evolution.
Darwin was not opposed to Lamarkism, and in fact accepted it himself, and made a refined variant of the same concept under the name of "Pangenesis"; so you're both mistaken; basic biology texts reference the fact that Darwin accepted Lamarkism before death: the concept is in the Origin of the Species, in fact (though under the the 'Pangenesis' label).

tooMuchData

18:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->
  • AiG claims Stalin's support for Darwin directly resulted in "oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder"[1] and that "Hitler was wrong. Stalin was wrong. Darwin’s theory, upon which those tyrants based their actions, was wrong, too."[2]). 3rd party citation on TO states that Stalin did not support Darwin but Lamarck. As you correctly point out, Lamarckism and Darwinism are different. Hence the AiG claim is refuted and may therefore legitimately be included in the 'criticism' section as it stands. Robindch 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The talkorigins source provided says that Stalin rejected 'Darwinism', not evolution. I think we need to get this sorted out before we can productively continue.Ashmoo 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that anybody interprets 'Darwinism' as meaning anything other than 'Darwinian Evolution', so I think it's quite clear what the author claims Stalin was rejecting.
Also, the links to John Wilkin's site point to his homepage. Did you have a specific article in mind? As it is unclear what point it is supposed to support. Ashmoo 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I linked to answer your query "Who rejects it? If you can't say who, it is OR". The link contains a reference to a page which references the page on TO, confirming that JW is indeed the author and that the refutation therefore originates from a reputable source, as you also requested earlier on.
(a) Unfortunately, taking the AiG quotes and the TalkOrigins quotes and synthesising them to show that AiG is wrong counts as Original Research (not incorrect, just OR). You need to provide a cite for someone who specifically states: 'AiG is wrong about Stalin supporting evolution'. Not just that 'Stalin didn't support Darwinism', but that 'AiG is incorrect in asserting that Stalin supported Darwinism'. Ashmoo 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
(b) Concerning the John Wilkins cites: The article no longer says 'is rejected' so my previous comment is no longer relevant. Unfortunately, it now says 'modern historians', and Wilkins isn't a historian. Ashmoo 01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
(c) And 'Darwinism' means 'Darwinian evolution'. But 'evolution' doesn't necessarily mean 'Darwinian evolution'. It could also mean 'Lamarkian Evolution'. And it is a POV to say that Stalin rejected evolution. Many would argue that he rejected 'Darwinian evolution' but not 'Lamarkian evolution'. Ashmoo 03:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (a) AiG claims X, based upon Y. JW claims Y is false. It is not synthesis to cite JW's claim to Y's falsity as constituting a refutation of X. (b) JW's homepage, referred to above, quotes him as having recently completed a PhD in the department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne, from which we can conclude that JW can be counted as a modern historian. (c) As before, in current usage, evolution alone refers to Darwinian Evolution alone (see the second para of the WikiPedia entry [3] which makes this clear). Thanks for your help in getting this tricky topic sorted out. Robindch 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note, before I get onto the main points. Editing other people's comments on talk pages, even if it is for formatting and readability is considered poor form, as it makes it appear as if the original editor wrote things in a way that they didn't. Not a big issue, but I thought it did need to be said. Ashmoo 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
(a) This is exactly what the no synthesis rule is supposed to stop. Please seeWP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. ie. AiG said A, Wilkins said B, therefore C (AiG wrong) (b) I can accept this. (c) Yes, 'evolution' generally means 'D. evolution' but when we are directly comparing Darwinian evolution and Lamarkian evolution we can't then assume or use 'evolution' as a shorthand for Darwinism. The fact that we are arguing about intrepretations of the source material, shows, IMO, that this whole bit is Original Research.
More generally, talkorigins has published hundred of refutations of AiG positions and articles, to focus on one of the few things they haven't explicitly debunked seems odd. Wouldn't it be better to include direct criticisms that they've made, thus avoiding any OR challenges from me, and more importantly, all the editors who come after me? Regards, Ashmoo 22:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (a) Sentence reworded to remove faintest whiff of OR and primary source quotation added. (c) Darwinian Evolution explicitly named in text, to avoid any possibility of confusion. Thanks again for your help in clarifying this. Robindch 10:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms

Note:

Darwin was not opposed to Lamarkism, and in fact accepted it himself, and made a refined variant of the same concept under the name of "Pangenesis"; so there's more than one mistaken person here; even basic biology texts reference the fact that Darwin accepted Lamarkism before death: the concept is in the Origin of the Species, in fact (though under the the 'Pangenesis' label). The real problem here is taking "TalkOrigins" as a reliable or precise source, whereas it's a popular, but neither rigorous nor precise one; Darwinism was a system that wholly incorporated Lamarkism, but in its own unique way.

Furthermore, even if Stalin breathed-out "I reject Darwinism", it doesn't mean he used the term precisely; and as far as I can tell, none of you are even talking very precisely; today, whenever the public uses "evolution", it's usually referring to an odd mixture Darwinian evolution and modern theory; however when scientists use the term, they're typically referring to what they call "Neo-Darwinian Theory" or "Neo-Darwinism", not "Darwinian Evolution". The points of refutation of Darwin's theory, supplied by his own pen, are all met, and accordingly the theory has been heavily modified (evolve or die in science).

What's likely, if I gather the arguments here correctly, is that Stalin was rejecting developments current in his time, not, however, "Darwinism" in his time entirely, if the term is used accurately: rhetorically screwing with his audiences, so to speak.

As for the original research accusations: they are correct, Rabindch: Wikipedia is a pain in the butt with being very rigid with its requirements, even if logical, but no offense, you don't seem to know your terms or concepts very well, or perhaps you're too eager to pick a fight with AiG's claims.

No offense, but hobbyist biologists are annoying.

And yes, I know I'm 2 years late to this conversation.

tooMuchData

18:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)<--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->

Notability

Also, I'd like to bring attention to this topic: the "Answers in a Creation" group seems like an even further-fringe one with few who take it seriously, even among creationists, with a few zealous editors either as the group, or supporters, writing themselves into Wikipedia and into the pages of groups with which they have a bone to pick. On the discussion section of their Wikipedia page someone writes (and I respond below that, though note when I "sign" on wikipedia it never works correctly):

Um, does AIC meet WP:WEB?JoshuaZ 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AIC appears to be a small organisation with a few supporters on WP - it is not even mentioned on large YEC orgs like "Answers in Genesis" (which do answer a few OECs like Hugh Ross). How else could a Christian org have "pro" bias on Wikipedia? This is why AIC is in a lot of "external link" sections, lol.

Yoda921 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

This is what I'm wondering: taking a look at it, they are not only a practical unknown, but it appears, they, or an interested party, are aggressively writing themselves into Wikipedia. enerally I wouldn't do this, as I like having comprehensive references available, however after having seen a few conflicts about notability on some other pages (Christian and otherwise), and the way that Wikipedia's policies tend to direct the expungement of unnotables, I would suggest the removal of this article, and the group's tampering on other pages. I don't think they meet the requirements regarding citations either (here WP:Reliable sources).

tooMuchData

18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me, as it usually does, after this arrow--)-->

Request for article

You've got an article on Islamic creationism. It's also the opinion of many orthodox Jews that the literal reading of Genesis on this subject must inherently be correct, & it would be appropriate to have an article on the subject, because almosty everything written by them is in Hebrew (and I cannot help, for i cannot read it)DGG 04:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish creationism may be what you are looking for. --ScienceApologist 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

and POV flag on Biblical literalism

and i call your attention to a POV flag I have placed on Biblical literalism, which to my surprise consisted of a non-neutral lead , and a secition arguments against, and nothing else. I recognize that those here may be tired of fighting all the hostile pages, and that the view as seems to be expressed there may not be what all of you hold, but the article now says that nobody holds the position and tha no argument can p[ossibly be made. DGG 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

Answers in Genesis seems to display a hypocritical position on the subject of slavery. While encouraging a literal interpretation of the bible it ignores Leviticus 25:44 - “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.” Answers in Genesis does not endorse slavery despite their literal interpretation of the Bible.

I don't think this is appropriate - after all, do they endorse stoning, genocide, giving your daughters up to be raped... Guettarda 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument is a false one. AIG takes great pains to differentiate between a literal interpretation and a "plain or straightforward" one. Prometheus-X303- 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that this passage is inappropriate. Some editor thinks they should be supporting slavery, based on what he understands as their views; Wikipedia should not be taking that position. Especially without a cite. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it inappropriate... AIG does indeed state that every word (including And, The, To, From, etc) is truthful and the "Exact" statement of God. Leviticus does indeed state that its ok to have slaves, yet AIG says Slavery is wrong. Also, this whole article reads like an Advertisement for AIG. Magnum Serpentine 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to log in the first time)
No, that's just your view of what you think they should believe based on some statements you have read. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Death and Suffering

As recorded in that section AiG's views are indistinguishable from virtually every other evangelical Christian organisation, Young Earther or otherwise. The viewpoint isn't relevant to Young Earth. Why are we noting it? DJ Clayworth 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Three weeks later, I've removed the section. DJ Clayworth 04:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentence needing citation

I removed from the Evolution and Race section the sentence "AiG does not point out that these beliefs were widespread within society at the time and were actively supported by many religious organizations, as well as a number of politically-motivated scientific ones" since I was unable to find a citation. If someone else can find one I'd appreciate it. JoshuaZ 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Ambiguity

The following paragraph in the "Definitions, probability, and natural selection" is rather ambigious, contains incorrect statements, and generally needs some work:

Answers in Genesis has written a number of articles about natural selection.[1] They state that "...It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information.", citing one example of natural selection removing genes for short fur in cold climates.[2] This view is not shared by the mainstream scientific community, which holds that mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy are examples where new information is available for the selection of new functions. On the other hand, Answers in Genesis claims that polyploidy and gene duplication do not constitute new information, just a duplication of information that was already there.[3]

Here's the problem. The mainstream scientific community does share the view that natural selection removes information - this is how it can "select" more promising characteristics. The scientific community holds that gene dupl. and polyploidy provide new information that natural selection "chooses" by removing other less beneficial genes. For example, if a creature with nonretractable claws had a mutation that created a retraction mechanism, the population without the mutation would be slowly removed until only the "retraction" mutation survived. Answers in Genesis denies that such positive-change mutations actually take place.

So, I propose the following changes:

Answers in Genesis has written a number of articles about natural selection.[4] They state that "...It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information.", citing one example of natural selection removing genes for short fur in cold climates.[5] Although it is true that natural selection only removes unnecessary or inferior information, the mainstream scientific community holds that mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy (see mutations) provide new information that can be "selected" by the removal of older information by natural selection. Answers in Genesis denies that such mutations can provide new, usable information, alleging that mutations only duplicate existing information.[6]

Overall I think it is a big improvement. The reader comes away less confused and has a better understanding of what the whole thing's about. standonbibleTalk! 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't correct. Natural selection does not remove information necessarily. --ScienceApologist 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I must beg to differ; can you give me an example of natural selection not removing information? If you insist we can change it to "natural selection removes" rather than "natural selection only removes". standonbibleTalk! 03:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a creationist straw man argument and your challenge is meant to draw me into a debate which is beyond the scope of this talkpage. The idea of information being removed or gained is a creationist artiface set-up to discuss the creationist ill-conceived "information science" idealization of how natural processes are "fallen" and "degenerative". However, the scientific mainstream does not make any statements regarding information and natural selection, so to say otherwise is highly misleading. The onus is on you to show that there are statements in standard scientific texts or papers that indicate that mainstream scientists agree with your characterization. --ScienceApologist 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
David D. wrote an excellent edit that fixed the problems with the paragraph. However, I would thank ScienceApologist to observe WP:AGF and not allege that I am trying to "draw [you] into a debate". Do not be so quick to label others, SA.
My proposed statements were paraphrased from the stable natural selection article, SA. According to that article, natural selection is the process by which more favorable genetic traits are passed on (i.e., the less favorable ones are removed). Thankfully, David's edit made such a clarification pretty much unnecessary. I do not intend to draw you into a debate nor was I making unsourced statements; if anything the statement that "this view is not shared by..." was entirely unsourced - the whole problem was that the immediate reference to mutations made it unclear exactly what view was not shared.
It is true that natural selection's relative lack of power regarding the introduction of new genetic traits can be used as a straw man argument - mainstream science banks not on natural selection but on mutations for the introduction of new genetic traits. But if you had taken the time to examine closely what I said, you would see that I was not attacking your sacred theory (not that it's your theory, just that it's sacred to you) - just making a distinction for the benefit of the reader. Some editors are so quick to throw AGF out the window whenever a sincere creationist editor mentions evolution or natural selection.
Oh, and if I wanted to draw you into a debate, I would do so by politely inviting you to join a discussion on my Talk page. standonbibleTalk! 04:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Natural selection removing information is a misconception of the process as a whole. The two sentences you had written were factually wrong. For example, a simple scenario might be after a gene duplication one gene maintains its historical function (such as photolyase that repairs DNA in response to UV light) the second reversion is mutated to aquire a new function (second photolyase gene loses its lyase activity but aquires a new function as a blue light receptor cryptochrome). So, natural selection has favoured organisms with both genes. Nothing is lost, a new function is acquired. This is the very thing that AiG says cannot happen. David D. (Talk) 04:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
In the example you gave above, AiG would say that the genetic code that lacked the new gene would be selected out. AiG would say that the acquisition of the new blue light receptor function would be impossible. It's really based on your way of looking at things (whether organisms with new genetic traits are "selected" or organisms without the traits are "removed") but the current version resolves the conflict beautifully. standonbibleTalk! 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the "Nylon Bug"? This is a specific bacterium that has developed the ability (autonomously) to metabolize Nylon for nutrients. AiG has specifically addressed this bacteria on a number of occasions, and the NMSR (authors of the linked article) has posted some specific rebuttals to their claims. This specific mutation is granted an increase in information. There are a number of other scenarios granting increases in information, including Antarctic fish synthesizing a compound similar to Ethylene Glycol, or the experiment involving E.Coli where it showed an increase in genetic information as a product of predation. Given enough random mutations (frame-shifts, etc.), genetic drift could lead to a result that is better suited to its environment than previous versions -- combined with selective pressures (or the relief of selective pressures), this new better-suited variety would be in a position to dominate the species population. Now, regarding the claim by AiG -- they are essentially asserting a negative, that something (natural selection) does NOT do something (increase information). Their conclusion is purely ruminative, and their "proof" is to highlight mutations that are resulted from decreased genetic information (because they do happen, no one is denying that) whilst simultaneously ignoring, or dismissing, mutations that are from an increase in information. At this time, they have not done any properly controlled scientific experiments to support their position. It's easily falsifiable: "If one species acquires a mutation that is a result from increased information rather than pared-down selection, then AiG's claim is wrong" -- refer to either of the above cases for examples of the refutation. Elecmahm (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Natural selection neither increases nor removes "information" - from an information theory perspective it reduces uncertainty (by favouring one genotype over others) and thus increases information. Another way of looking at it is that natural selection improves fit between phenotype and environment, thus it reduces noise, strengthens signal - and thus, increases information. Guettarda 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You can say that. Or you can say that natural selection, by favoring one genotye over another, decreases information by removing defective or lacking genetic codes from the population gene pool. It's two ways of saying the same thing. Natural selection is the process by which positive genotype proliferate throughout a population (increase) - organisms without the genotype are less likely to pass on their genes and thus the complete genetic codes that lack new traits are removed from the population (decrease). standonbibleTalk! 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"You can say that" - no, you "said that". You were talking about information. Now if you are talking about genetic diversity, that's a different matter. But it still isn't correct to say that natural selection "reduces genetic diversity". It can reduce it, or it can increase it. It's wrong to say that "[n]atural selection is the process by which positive genotype proliferate throughout a population (increase)". Natural selection can act to increase or decrease allele frequencies. There's no assumption that selection will bring a certain genotype to fixation - selection is not a single-axis function, it acts in multi-dimensional space. Natural selection does not move towards any single optimum, but rather, towards local optima. Natural selection can increase the frequency of a rare allele, making it less likely to go extinct. That would increase the genetic diversity of a population. In addition, certain genotypes may only be favoured when they are rare, while others may be selected against when they are common - for example, if a mutation converts a pseudogene to an expressed product, natural selection can act to increase the frequency of this new allele, incrementing the number of expressed genes in the population. Similarly, if a mutation produces a new allele of an existing gene, natural selection can make the gene more frequent in the population. It is not a given that the new allele would go to fixation in the population - stable polymorphisms are common. So it is possible for natural selection to either increase or decrease the genetic diversity in a population. Guettarda 06:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that I'm agreeing with you here. The problem is the way we are referring to natural selection - it is not a force as much as it is the term we use to describe what happens through survival of the fittest. Natural selection cannot add alleles, but it can increase the frequency of a new allele. The point that I was trying to make from the beginning is that natural selection, by itself, has no way to create new genotypes. Like you said, it moves toward a local optima - it mightincrease the frequency of a rare allele, or it might decrease the frequency of a different allele. Natural selection is the proliferation or non-proliferation of alleles in a dynamic population.
The only real change in genetic information that takes place is when a genotype is selected against until it no longer exists - for instance a mutation that provided a new function but left the organism open to bacterial infection. In such cases natural selection removes genetic information from the population. However, it can't actually gain information unless it has new alleles to work with. That was the point I was trying to make - hence "AiG says natural selection only removes information; this is true but mainstream science points to mutations that allow natural selection to add information to a population". The difference is whether we are talking about specific genotypes or overall genetic diversity or the proliferation of a genotype. If we are talking about specific genotypes - natural selection can spread them around through a population but it cannot add new ones. It can only, in some cases, remove old or defective ones. We are saying the same thing two different ways. standonbibleTalk! 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New info about the breakup

See here unfortunately this doesn't seem to be a WP:RS. JoshuaZ 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be well documented. 58.162.2.122 12:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As below, don't rely on the blog entry, rely on the sources cited in the blog entry--I supplied links to plenty of them. Or you can wait for my published article to appear later this year. Lippard 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The online Christian magazine Christian Faith and Reason briefly comments on the split in a discussion of AiG's new Creation Museum, here. Lippard 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Necrophilia and Satanism

According to this blog one of AIG's founder's John Mackay has accused Ken Ham’s personal secretary Margaret Buchanan of being sent by Satan to undermine the ministry and that Margaret Buchanan had sex with the corpse of her late husband.

Blogs are not considered reliable sources. DJ Clayworth 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Lippard's blog is fairly reliable, and in this case it cites sources. Indeed, Ken Ham is one of those who condemned MacKay for this and other slanders, but is now sleazily teaming up with him. 58.162.2.122 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Blogs are generally considered unreliable; they're usually not considered on a case by case basis. Unless this is reported elsewhere (i.e. by an organisation or a major news outlet) the information cannot be put into the article. --Davril2020 13:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Some disagreement. Blogs can be considered on a case for case basis but the standard for their inclusion is very high. This does not seem to meet that standard. JoshuaZ 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't rely on my blog, rely on the *primary sources* that are linked from my blog--like Margaret Buchanan's booklet, _Salem Revisited_, and the giant PDF of supporting documentation. Lippard 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's policy on original research. Now if these accusations got mentioned somewhere other than your blog in the synthesized form, say in a newspaper, then we might be able to cite that. JoshuaZ 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Margaret Buchanan's booklet, _Salem Revisited_, was published and distributed. As I said in another comment above, I have an article in press on the overall AiG/CMI schism--I'll make it known on this talk page when it is published. Lippard 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Self published? If so, still sounds dubious. How can such claims not be in the press? Wouldn't they have a field day with such stuff if there was even a hint that this was real?David D. (Talk) 19:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's your press: http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21843706-2702,00.html?from=public_rss Lippard 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/100183.html, and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21848726-28737,00.html Lippard 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Source Please

[quote]However, it must be noted that AIG's list of creationists include only a narrow brand of non-evolutionists, namely young-earth Biblical creationists. Thus, the total number of scienists who reject or question evolution at any level is obviously larger[/quote]

I put a note on this that the above statement needs to cite the source of the above statement... My reasons are...

From Wikipedia on sources:

  • To show that your edit isn't original research.
  • To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
  • To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
  • To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
  • To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.

Magnum Serpentine 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed -Please get some secondary sources

This article relies WAY too heavily on AIG for sourcing of claims. Please find some secondary sourcing. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it is AIG stance on these issues that are being discussed why shouldn't their own work be used as a source? David D. (Talk) 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you point out which specific claims requires additional sources? Ashmoo 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is not NPOV - it's pro AIG, and except for the criticism, reads like an ad. I'm just STARTING to research the claims, and the FIRST one I looked for - that 'AIG does not endorse teaching creationism in schools' is contradicted by their own website "Ideally, each view [creationism & evolution] should be accurately and appropriately presented, and other theories such as exobiology theory should at least be discussed." Troubling, very troubling. teaching link - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That article is from 1999, they do not currently endorse teaching creationism - and anyway, you will note that they were talking about "denominational colleges" (with a Methodist example) in that paragraph. rossnixon 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
They have it on their website, they don't indicate anywhere on that page that the document in question is historical. This doesn't seem to be a complicated situation. (And if I recall correctly, AIG has been doing the whole two-mouthed thing about schools for a while. 1999 isnt at all old for that purpose). JoshuaZ 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The addition of a totally disputed tag seems a lot like overkill. Can I remove it? Or is there actually something disputable in this article. Whomever added the tag needs to outline their case. Nothing discussed above warrants this tag. David D. (Talk) 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is definitely non-neutral. It does not clarify "evolution is not just a chance , according to the scientific community, but is about natural selection", and "evolution is not about formation of first life" the sentence about "scientists accept that they dont completely understand... " is out of place without mentioning this. These things have to be clarified before this article can be declared non-neutral.--Amit524 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well let's stick a NPOV tag on totally disputed seems a little OTT. Can you suggest how you would clarify "evolution is not just chance....natural selection". Doesn't the mention of natural selection clarify it? David D. (Talk) 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with David. This isn't a "total" dispute. FGT2 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
While I think most of the article is very NPOV, considering the topic , the last section (Spontaneous generation...) smacks of POV Original Research. We must remember, this article is about AiG, not creation vs evolution in general. The article should also not seek to analyse the validity of there claims, rather, just report them and report specific criticisms of their claims. I see that a number of general criticisms of creationism, not specifically targeted at AiG have snuck in. These need to be removed. A reader can go to the creationism article of a detailed criticism of the topic in general. Ashmoo 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See also

Look, I'm no fan of AiG but the See also section that was added recently:

Cargo cult science, Creationism, Cult, False analogy, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, Front organization, Intelligent falling, Junk science, List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design, Propaganda, Pseudoscience

by Struct (talk · contribs) reads like a POV rant. I have removed it since nothing seems woth salvaging. The pertinent ones are already linked in the article. David D. (Talk) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

French for monkey

Would it be pertinent for the article to point out that the "answersingenesis" URL looks suspiciously like it incorporates the French word for "monkey" (singe)? I think that such bi-lingual drollery deserves to be recognised. 138.40.1.12 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea for uncyclopedia.org ! rossnixon 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Biblical Geocentrism" Comment

Just a note about a removed recent edit; in this sentence in the criticism section: "AIG points out that the majority can be wrong; for example, the scientific consensus at one time held geocentric views, and yet those scientists were wrong", an anon editor had added "(ironically biblically based)" into it. That's a common misconception, and in any case was not sourced. The sentence itself was sourced, and the source did not claim that geocentrism was biblical--in fact it debunks that misconception, saying that it was something added to the Bible Church Tradition from "pagan" philosophy, namely Aristotle and Ptolemy. So, just pointing out that I see no reason that parenthetical statement should be there. Now, my understanding is that if there was an actual source for the misconception, that could be included (probably as a seperate sentence for clarity), and cited. It seems pointless though given that the original source debunks it, so I've removed the three words. Bringing up for discussion... --Bonesiii 23:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to warrant discussion. By "added to the Bible", I assume you mean "added to Church tradition"? I agree with the removal anyway. rossnixon 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Right; poor choice of words on my part, sorry... --Bonesiii 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and Race

In this section, it is claimed that "AiG asserts that anyone using the Bible to justify atrocities (such as during the Crusades, the colonization of the New World, pogroms, the burning of "witches", the Wars of Religion etc.) misinterprets the Bible's intent, and they quote Jesus' command to love your enemies.[45]"

However AiG states "more often" that unchristian acts caused by "Christians" are inconsistent with the Bible, whereas "evil" acts caused by Hitler and Stalin are completely consistent with their way of thinking (i.e. evolution). It states this on this page: here and this page here. I think this needs to be brought up in the article. What is stated ("misinterprets the Bible's intent") does not appear to be written in the source used, or in any other pages related to this area.

Yoda921 09:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Museum Comparisons

Under the Creation Museum section, is a comparison between the donations earned by AIG for their museum and the failed attempt of American Museum of Natural History to get corporate sponsorship necessary in an article that concerns AIG as an organization? I admit, this would go well in the museum article itself as it pertains to the museum, but it seems irrelevant in what ought to be an encyclopedic sketch of an organization. Rec Specz 07:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Note– I removed this section due to it being irrelevant Rec Specz 07:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Majority Can Be Wrong" Line?

  • I noticed that someone removed this line from the criticism section, with, as far as I can see, no justifying reasons given here on the talk page: "AIG points out that the majority can be wrong; for example, the scientific consensus at one time held geocentric views, and yet those scientists were wrong.[7]"
  • Looking through the history, it appears User:Rossnixon was the user that removed it, with this comment: "m (rv true statement that is not encyclopedic)". Now, the edit was not listed as specifically to the Criticism section, but it appears that is the edit where the line disappeared. This is puzzling, since the line is on-topic to the subject of that paragraph; a criticism of AIG based on majorities. I do not see how removing that line fits Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Apologies if that's not the line the edit note is referring to and I'm misunderstanding; I would assume in that case the removal was simply a mistake. Was also puzzling since the edit was marked as minor, so again reason to think it may have been a mistake...
  • Therefore, to follow NPOV properly, my understanding is that both the criticism and the countercriticism need dropped, if they are not encyclopedic (which would be fair enough to both sides, probably; the criticism is based on an embarrassingly novice logical fallacy of Ad Populum). Or, if the criticism stays, the countercriticism is needed to. Yes?
  • I wrote that line, so maybe I'm biased (and I don't want to risk an edit war over it). And to make it clear, I've been keeping an eye on this page since there's a lot of vandalism going around--I would prefer though in this case to give the editor the benefit of the doubt that this was done for good reasons. :-) Any thoughts? --Bonesiii 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't my edit. My edit was removing "But keep in mind that NAiG is completely wrong. rossnixon 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If NPOV required us to have counter-criticism etc. then articles would fall into counter-counter-criticism and so on and so forth. We simply try to give a decent summary of the relevant matters. The line should stay out. JoshuaZ 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I can see that point, but where I'm coming from is, any major relevant points an organization has made would be "relevant matters" in an article devoted to that organization, would you agree? So it seems to me that a simple criticism, countercriticism is detailed enough, if the counter fits those criterion, as this does. Maybe that's just me though, and I'm not trying to quarrel; don't misunderstand. :-) Countercriticisms may not be absolutely required, but does that mean they need to be absent, where they're major issues related to the organization? [Edit: And by the way, re-reading NPOV, it seems that the vast majority of what it focuses on is issues of majority/minority. So it does seem this is a relevant matter?]
Also, the original criticism is the other issue--if AIG's view on that is not relevant, would the criticism not be relevant either? Or at least not that detailed? Perhaps a simple sentence pointing out that AIG and creationists are a minority? --Bonesiii 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The current version makes sense per WP:NPOV. See especially the section on undue weight. JoshuaZ 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1st: Thanks for replying, rossnixon, and clearing that up. 2nd: JoshuaZ, your reply is puzzling, because the section on undue weight was actually the part I was talking about. Notice these key phrases from the policy: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.." Emphasis in the original. As much does not mean "none", right? Also, this line: "and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Not sure if we're considering AIG "tiny minority" here or not (and merely "minority"), but either way, this is an article about AIG. Therefore, the section you referred to supports this major point made by AIG being mentioned in this article, which is about AIG, as I'm reading it. Maybe I'm just not seeing the forest for the trees here, and there's some general overriding principle that's stated there that I'm missing--if so, could you please point it out? By quoting, if you have time? The overriding principle that I am seeing is made clear by the title itself; the idea is for Wiki articles to have a neutral POV. That means being careful, in this case, not to be biased towards AIG, or to be biased against it. Also, keep in mind this paragraph in question is several sentences long while describing the criticism, but the only pro-AIG line in question is one small sentence. --Bonesiii 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Repeating above request for clarification... It seems that the NPOV policy supports the line being in there. --Bonesiii 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement doesn't belong for the simple fact that it is flat out wrong. There was never any scientific consensus behind geocentrism; in fact, science as we know it postdates heliocentrism.Heqwm 05:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead links

Many of the reference links in this article appear to be dead, mostly links to the AiG website. Perhaps these items still exist but have changed address. Could someone with a particular interest in this article please check this out? In particular I found all the following dead when I checked today (28 April 2007): http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0521.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0914search_engine.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/curl.asp?cid=14882 http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0610.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0610.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/editorial.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#1 http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/1102lead.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0131colleges.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/reviews/beckwith.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative12feb2001.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/feedback/2005/0222.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/stem_cells.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1101ankerberg_response.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0711scopes.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp http://answersingenesis.org/museum/docs2005/0523dinosaurs.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0615debate.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/charitycheck.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm%7CNew --Zamphuor 05:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AIG is having technical difficulties right now. No idea about the other sites... --Bonesiii 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The technical difficulties with AIG's site seem to be resolved. --Bonesiii 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've crossed most of these out now. --Zamphuor 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm%7CNew should be this: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm Elecmahm (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Ken Ham head shot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Everlasting conscious punishment

Hello - while I understand that my recent addition [4] may have been at an improper place, I still would like to see this notion mentioned in the article. The public focus on AiG appears primarily on its approach to creation, so it seems justified to leave the introductory section as-is. Nevertheless, from the published statement of faith, I infer that the scientific debate is secondary to the belief in Christ, and the stated consequences are more explicit as what one might expect from a Christian group. "Everlasting conscious punishment" therefore is a notable qualifier in understanding AiG. How can we accomodate? One4OneWorld 13:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Either include their entire Statement of Faith, if it is appropriate (which I doubt). Or include a link to the relevant part of their website. We don't need "cherry picking" to make a point. rossnixon 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've checked with other religious belief groups and found that it is common to have certain statements of faith that appear not to be reconcilable with other religious belief groups, aside from what the primary focus of said group is. In this case, the primary focus appears to be young Earth creationism. Therefore I agree with not listing "everlasting conscious punishment" here, and agree with your edit (since it shows properly on linked page). You've sparked my interest in investigating "cherry picking", as you call it, and its role in inhibiting dialogue (due to its at times "final" and polarizing appeal of secondary or seemingly unneeded "add-ons"). One4OneWorld 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with Creation Ministries International

The current mention gives far too much prominence to the 25 year old dispute with McKay, which has only very peripheral relevance. Frankly, I think that it is not relevant, not encyclopedic. The dispute is actually over management styles and income from magazine distributions, and so on. I have an interest here. On my own blog I have put together a comprehensive list of resource and a lengthy discussion of this dispute. As Jim Lippard has noted, you don't need to use the blogs; you use the sources they indicate. But as a starting point for someone researching the issue, the blog article will be very useful.[5] The reason McKay is mentioned is that all his accusations were so juicy (necrophilia? witchcraft? Oh boy!) that it is almost irresistible to have them included. I describe them at my blog as well -- and indicate why they are not particularly relevant. I'm going to modify this section a bit. I'm just giving notice here of my intent and background. -- Duae Quartunciae 00:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes are now made. Here is a permanent link to the changes I have applied. (diffs) -- Duae Quartunciae 01:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A published secondary source which may be referenced is Jim Lippard, "Trouble in Paradise: Answers in Genesis Splinters," Reports of the National Center for Science Education vol. 26, no. 6, Nov-Dec, 2006, pp. 4-7. Lippard 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am manually undoing the edits by Abiller68 regarding the AIG-CMI dispute. They are uncited, inaccurate and POV. The CMI lawsuit was filed on 31 May 07 (according to the copy of the actual claim filed), and the Creation Museum ribbon cutting ceremony was on 26 May 07 (according to AIG and Wikipedia’s own article on the Creation Museum). Something that occurred AFTER an event cannot possibly have occurred on the eve of that event. The addition of the “on the eve…” comment is almost a direct quote from AIG and is highly emotive, which makes me wonder just who Abiller68 actually is. There has been no documentation provided or referenced to indicate that AIG initiated binding arbitration of any kind at any time, or that CMI refused such. There is documentation available (already referenced in the article) which indicates that the opposite is true (i.e. the actual roles are reversed), although this documentation is provided by CMI themselves. Ultimately, we now have a situation where both parties have claimed that the other party has refused arbitration. Until something is published that firmly establishes one party’s refusal to enter binding arbitration, reporting this whichever way around amounts to POV. As a Christian and Young Earth Creationist I find this whole dispute tragic and frankly nauseating. However, since it is going to be included in Wikipedia articles it should be dealt with in the proper NPOV manner. I do notice that Abiller68’s only contributions were this same edit in the AIG and Ken Ham articles, and there is no user page. Again, I wonder who Abiller68 actually is. LowKey (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cosmology section

There is a minor edit war going on as people disagree on what is neutral wording or POV.

The words "believe that" and "explain that" are being used as two alternatives for associating relativity with Humphrey's model. I do not think you may use "explain". That gives too much credence to the notion, which has effectively no credibility with people who actually understand relativity. I am proposing the word "claim", that may address your worry about "believe".

I have also moved the citation to a paper claimed to be similar to Humphrey's model. If the paper does not make that claim itself, then the association is WP:OR and inadmissible. In my view the association is completely absurd, but that's just me. The guidelines are such that that you cannot introduce a paper and claim a linkage that is not explicit in the paper itself.

Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some residual POV problems left by the reversion of my edits. In particular I maintain the following:
  • Humphrey's model is dependent on a God creating the universe as a white hole. The lack of any mention of God seems to be a big problem with previous wording.
  • Much of the physics surrounding the general relativity inherent to this idea is incorrect. Humphreys relies on time dilation which occurs from a spacetime curvature associated with the Schwarzchild solution when in fact he is relying on a white-hole solution. Time dilation actually occurs in the opposite manner at a white hole as shown by Penrose et al.
  • The fact that Humphreys is criticized by both the mainstream talkorigins archive and Hugh Ross is important.
For these reasons, I have restored my version. I encourage those advocating otherwise to explain themselves here.
--Nondistinguished 13:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the name of the Humphreys model should not have been deleted. There is no "big problem" in not mentioning God. (Everything is dependent on other things - no need to mention them all the time.) Criticism of Humphreys is to be expected from all non-YEC groups; that's fine as long as the source is WP:RS rossnixon 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Nondistinguished should have merely reverted everything back to his version. He is effectively claiming ownership, and making no attempt to deal with other people attempting to work on the material in good faith.
In particular, I am uncomfortable with the talk.origins reference he restored. I am myself a contributor to the talkorigins archive, and I was very active in their feedback section for some years, until it unfortunately was disabled due to recurring attacks that compromised the entire site. I think talkorigins is a great resource. However, it is strongly POV. Of course, Humphrey's model is gibbering lunacy; but we can't just say that in an encyclopedia, and citing an unreviewed POV website needs to be done with extreme caution. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a few edits, such as massively shortening the criticism, but leaving the link to TalkOrigins. I don't mind the cite - the authors/editors have a physics and astrophysics degree, so may be reliable. rossnixon 02:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the words "report", "theory" and "model" to words that are more appropriate. "Report" carries connotations of factual accuracy so it was changed to the more neutral "state". "Theory" and "model" have specific meanings within science and are mentioned on Wikipedia:NPOV so they were changed to other words. JamesStewart7 03:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The changes look good to me, James. I have made a minor edit to let the talkorigins link render consistently with all the other links. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of Humphreys physics

There are many problems with Humphreys model in terms of the pseudophysics on which he relies. Previously, we linked to a notable anticreationist website to discuss these problems. User:Duae Quartunciae is under the impression that the anti-creationist website is "extermely POV", but excluding a source in such a fashion flies in the face of our neutrality policy and other guidelines on wikipedia. In particular, all sources may or may not have a POV: it is not the place of editors to exclude sources solely on that basis. Rather, editors are encouraged to use sources that are relible and verifiable. As User:rossnixon rightly points out, talkorigins is both of these things.

Our next consideration is WP:WEIGHT. This particular idea is an extreme WP:FRINGE idea and we are therefore under the obligation writing a neutral encyclopedia to explain to our readers verifiably the mainstream alternative. In point of fact, we probably should consider spending a lot more time on criticism since the prevailing view among those "in the know" is either to completely ignore and marginalize creationists or to flatly point out that Humphreys is wrong. The TalkOrigins site is an excellent way to do this and we should not shy away from quoting them directly as their critique is verifiable and reliable as well as being mainstream.

So I implore the editors here to reconsider in light of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE to include the criticism of the pseudoscience being described here. It is important that readers know that Humphreys messed up his relativity treatments according to third party evaluations. It is also important that readers know that Humphreys cannot explain a lot of basic observations that lead mainstream scientists to the concordance model of the Big Bang. Currently the article just says that criticism exists without explaining what it is. I believe we are under an obligation to our readers to explain what the criticism is.

Nondistinguished 13:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Humphrey's model is pseudophysics. From what I could garner it appears to violate the Copernican principle at the very least. This is an article about a notable fringe group who advocates creationism though so it is necessary to present a fair amount of pseudoscience. As such, I see no problem with presenting Humphrey's views. Because of the fringe status of these views criticism should also be presented. I would not say a long quotation from an anticreationist website, however notable or verifiable is appropriate though. It seems to me that providing a short scientific criticism of Humphrey's ideas from a neutral source is a fair compromise. Note, that this has been done throughout the rest of the article without needing to reference talk.origins. Since talk.origins clearly references their sources, using these sources to compile a few short sentences on how Humphrey's ideas are pseudoscience should be trivial. If the original sources are used instead of talk.origins there should be no POV disputes. JamesStewart7 14:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the talkorigina archive in question? It seems to be fairly balanced to me. While it does offer sources, the problem here is that Humphreys ideas are so obscure within the community as to not have generated any comment or critique: the mainstream just doesn't care. I refer you to WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources. Clearly, there is some justification for including critiques referenced from the reliable sources at the talkorigins archive.
One of the problems is that Humphreys doesn't know how to use general relativity and so makes his claims in Starlight and Time without reference to any standard treatments. He asserts time dilation in a white hole without really understanding that the conformal diagram for a white hole implies light-like geodesics that are associated with time dilation in the exact opposite way he proposes! Is there a source for this? No, it's a standard homework problem for graduate students taking GR and isn't really relevant to the article except to say that Humphreys gets his GR wrong. That's what's important. The only source for the fact (opinion?) that Humphreys gets his GR wrong is talkorigins archive because everyone else ignores his nonsense. So I don't see why we can't include that criticism and source it directly from there, for example.
Nondistinguished 11:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok you make a good case. In light of WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources and the relative obscurity of Humphrey's claims I would agree that there is justification for including talk.origins critiques in this section. Although a source such as a scientific journal would of course be preferable, since that is apparently unavailable, the talk.origins archive is probably the next best thing. I would like to ask that people post there objections here before reverting any of the talk.origins additions to the cosmology section. JamesStewart7 04:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary Sources flag

Why the need for this flag? The article mainly reports what AiG believes. As such primary sources are best. Are there examples of any points made in the article about them that need confirmation from another party? I will delete the flag if there is no actual dispute. rossnixon 02:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources should not be relied on exclusively as there are issues with neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. The dispute is, plainly, that we need secondary and tertiary sources that describe AiG's views to maintain the integrity of the article. It is not good enough to simply use their website to describe what they believe because :
  1. their ministry should be recognized by those unaffiliated with the organization to establish notability.
  2. the pseudoscience they promote can be and is debunked by third parties.
  3. analysis of their ministry and ideology should be done by independent groups to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia isn't simply a conglomeration of the beliefs of people. While using AiG to describe their positions is fine, the article needs to go beyond simple description of the beliefs as provided by the source.
Nondistinguished 13:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Citing AiG as support for AiG's position is silly. That's like citing the Tobacco Institute's website for support in a cigarette's article, or a KKK website in support for a white supremacy article. Given the nature of AiG's work (and this is IMHO here), the AiG website itself is full of OR -- ergo citing it exclusively would be in error for anything beyond stating FACTS about the organization (historical facts) or OPINIONS (as such). Any content in support of their views should really be cited from more reliable third-parties. Elecmahm (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted an unsourced addition

I just reverted an unsourced brief paragraph. It read as follows:

This addition was added to the end of "Mainstream critics", but it is more of a general criticism. It is also unsourced, and singles out one of many bits of AiG weirdness in terms that are not actually used all that often in AiG comments on the second law. The bit about editing quotes in particular cannot be made without a solid reference. I'm a critic of AiG, but this was not a good addition. Sorry, I omitted to make any edit comment to explain myself. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction that you're making between mainstream and general criticism. Misrepresentation of the Second Law is an extremely common Creationist trope. I appreciate your bringing your concerns to the talk page, and I hope you don't take offense at me saying that I believe that "Sorry, I failed [or forgot] to make an edit comment explaining myself" would be more standard English.Heqwm 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite right on the grammar; and being something of a grammar nazi myself from time to time, I have no problem with being corrected on such a thing. Thanks. I realize that misrepresentation of the second law is very common indeed; but I think this section should really be about actual reference to mainstream critics. That's roughly what is there at present, and it matches the section heading. I don't think this section is intended to be a grab bag for all the points on which criticism has been raised. Heck, there are so many bits of science that get mangled by AiG that we'd be overwhelmed. It's really for listing the critics. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly Tautological Language

Under the "Cosmology" section, this is written:

Answers in Genesis believes that all stars and planetary bodies, including the Earth, were formed around 6,000 years ago.[16] They reject the mainstream theories of cosmology,[17] because they contradict AiG's interpretation of the text of the Bible.[18]

This could be paraphrased as... "Answers in Genesis believes that.... They reject the mainstreme theories, because they contradict AiG's interpretation."

It's the equivalent of stating "They support this... and reject other ideas because they contradict what they think."

I can't be bothered fixing this tautological language, though...

DarthSidious 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

I've removed the phrase "because they contradict AiG's interpretation of the text of the Bible." By this point in the article, we've already stated that AiG rejects some scientific interpretations because they are believed to conflict with the Bible. DennisF 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cosmology section too long

This section needs to be trimmed down. It's quite large and amounts to a general criticism of young earth creationism in general. In particular, a lot of space is given specifically to the distant star light problem. There's another whole WP page for that. DennisF 17:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph that needs to be rewritten

According to their account, Dawkins had been made aware of the interviewer's creationist sympathies. They further claim that the raw footage shows that Dawkins, after pausing for a long time, asked that the recording company stop recording the video. They did this but kept the audio running in order to preserve an uncut original, which has now been released to the public. Dawkins was asked the same question later after the video recording had resumed. The "Skeptics choke on Frog" video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity.--Filll (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewing the bible

Interesting perspective on the AIG "peer reviewed" Journal here http://www.slate.com/id/2184384/entry/2184386/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talkcontribs) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This blurb from that Slate article says it all: Here the goal is not to ensure that research meets academic standards of scientific inquiry, but rather to ensure that the scholar's conclusions conform to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I've read the PDF for Submitting a Paper. The feeling I got from it was "Hey, as long as your paper is completely congruent with the message we're promoting and sounds smart, we'll print it!" Their editors will even help you reconcile your paper with their views to make sure it fits. Oy. Elecmahm (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Necrophilia accusations

I read the cited source -- the only mention it makes of necrophilia was of accusations made by co-founder John Mackay (who split with AiG) against "Margaret Buchanan, who at the time was Ken Ham's widowed personal secretary". I therefore think that the passage needs a rewrite, at the very least. HrafnTalkStalk 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Although a date wasn't given, it seems apparent that these charges were made long before the AiG/CMI split, so are they really relevant to the section they're in? HrafnTalkStalk 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, this probably belongs in a paragraph about the Mackay/AiG split in the 'History' section. HrafnTalkStalk 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read several accounts which mention this. I think that it needs to be mentioned in this article for several reasons:
  • it shows the depth of rancor that exists between these organizations, and the extent to which people seem to be willing to go in this situation
Insert: I think Hrafn is right, and that this may rather show the depth of rancor between those who ill-cited a source by removing its content from context, twisting it, and a group they don't like, about which they're currently editing a Wikipedia entry. : )

tooMuchData

18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • it is notable since it has appeared in numerous news accounts, particularly in Australia
Insert: That still doesn't mean "necrophilia" wasn't taken out of context; Hrafn still has you there.

tooMuchData

18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • many of these creationist ministries harbor similar problems just below the surface (like Kent Hovind's ministry for example, or the huge number of evangelist scandals). We exist to present the facts as we see them documented in WP:RS, not to try to protect these organizations from themselves and whitewash the situation. It is not that society is picking on these organizations, since all organizations have similar problems, but it is the hypocrisy of having organizations that are constantly condemning the rest of society for being evil then exhibit the same sorts of problems that draws the attention of the media, which of course leads to it being included on Wikipedia.
Insert: Your blushing: the point of these articles is not for you to demonstrate the rancor you perceive, but rather write about them individually.

tooMuchData

18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We do not describe the details in our article, so we are avoiding WP:BLP problems. It does not matter to Wikipedia particularly who made the accusation and against who the accusation was made, but the fact that things have become ugly enough that all kinds of extreme charges are being made reflect in a certain way on these organizations. This image continues to follow the pattern of these types of organizations, and that is valuable information for the reader who is trying to understand the situation and the phenomenon of creationist organizations pushing a very narrow and very extreme agenda. Contrary to their claims that evolution is the source of all the evil and social ills in the world (such as teenage pregnancy, the Holocaust, communism, Nazis, pornography, drunk driving, drug usage, slavery, divorce, abortion, atheism, carjacking, high school dropout rates, etc), the brand of extreme fundamentalism and biblical literalism (or koranic fundamentalism) has a fairly ugly record of justifying social ills over the years (Stalin and his cronies including those who ran the labor camps were all trained in religious seminaries, Hitler used Martin Luther's work "On Jews and Their Lies" as a useful guide, Islamic fundamentalists have an ugly record of behavior in Iran and Afghanistan and Egypt and other countries, biblical literalism was used to justify slavery in the US and still is used by the Klu Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, and so on and so forth). For a reader who is involved in careful scholarship of the situation, they need all the information available. And that is where Wikipedia comes in.
I may have to report you to the admins for pushing your agendas through using wikipedia, as the above quote demonstrates: your job as an editor here is to describe the organization, not turn the tables of accusations from the Creationists' claim of evolution being the problem, onto Fundamentalism as the problem; your job is to write a verifiable, NPOV, about-the-subject, notable, article suitable according to wikipedia guidelines. You also seem to know little of your German (or European) History, might I add: one that Luther's essay was published under another name than what he intended (sensationalistic publishers), another being that those charges levelled weren't undue ones, but responding to Rabbinical fairy-tales: the Anti-defamation league has gone as far as arguing those stories were "necessary" to defend Judaism, despite being fabrications: this did little more than anger Luther and others who were greatly offended unduly, himself a friend and student of Rabbis, might I add, in order to learn Hebrew: even collaborating to translate his bible. Next time you get on a rant to accuse one group of ill-accusations regarding the implications of an ideology, don't hypocritically, with misunderstanding, do the same to the very groups you're accusing; it's neither civil, nor in-line with Wikipedia policies, and I'd like to bring that up to you.

tooMuchData

18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If we can find sources that dispute this account, they should be included as well of course, as long as we do not devote too much room to the discussion of what is probably a very minor sidelight of the dispute. --Filll (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I didn't think the issue was whether or not the account was disputed, but whether the WP article accurately reflected the sources. Here's what the WP article stated[6] in the section "Legal controversy with Creation Ministries International":

A more involved analysis of the situation, including AiG-US' charges of necrophilia and witchcraft against CMI's Carl Wieland's wife, is described in an account in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education.[83]

Here is what the cited source, Lippard's report in RNCSE, said about necrophilia (in separate paragraphs):

These documents also reveal surprising details of the Australian group's 1987 split with co-founder John Mackay, which include accusations of demonic possession and necrophilia. ... These last items, CMI contends, show that John Mackay had accused Margaret Buchanan, who at the time was Ken Ham's widowed personal secretary, of being a demonically possessed practitioner of witchcraft attempting to undermine the Australian organization and Mackay in particular, as well as of practicing necrophilia. Buchanan was placed on leave for several weeks as the organization initially took Mackay's claims seriously and ultimately rejected them, which led to Mackay's departure. CMI apparently regards AiG–US as now being willing to work with Mackay in order to rebuild its support in Australia, despite the fact that Ham had previously cut all ties with him over his accusations.

Nowhere did the RNCSE report say that AiG-US had charged Carl Wieland's wife with anything, nor that any allegations of necrophilia were part of CMI's lawsuit against AiG-US, nor that the allegations were made since the 1980s. Neither does the Australian article[7] that was also referenced say anything of the kind. So the original statement was seemed both incorrect and not related to the legal controversy, since it's not in CMI's statement of claim, nor is John Mackay said to speak for AiG-US. Furthermore, the allegations of witchcraft and necrophilia were made in the 1980s, before AiG-US existed (and were made against Ken Ham's secretary).
Thus, the original version seemed to be both inaccurate and not part of the legal controversy. If there is an appropriate place for the statements, it would seem to be in the history section of an article on both CMI and AIG-US's predecessor, the Creation Science Foundation. CricketChirp (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


I think there is more to it than this. A little investigation showed that this is part of the court papers involved with the current dustup. I cannot do more investigation from here but if you want to turn this into a huge thing with dozens of references, then we can. We can drag it out and make a big ugly mess of it if you prefer. It never ceases to amaze me how creationists complain and make things worse for themselves...--Filll (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be more in keeping with wikipedia policies: mis-citing sources isn't a small thing, for which I believe the admins are able to ban users as well. Fix the mistakes, and don't justify mis-cites by lamenting that it'll make you be rigorous with your sources.

tooMuchData

18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Filll: there were two unrelated dust-ups. The first one, early on, had AiG (both US & Aus) against John Mackay. The second was AiG-US against CMI (formerly AiG-Aus). That the Aus & US branches were on the same side versus John Mackay can be seen from the fact that the woman he accused, Ken Ham's (AiG-US) personal secretary at the time, later became Wieland's (CMI) wife. The Mackay incident probably is relevant to the article as a whole, in that it demonstrates how schismatic & hysterical the organisation was at times, but it is not directly relevant to the AiG-US/CMI dispute. HrafnTalkStalk 02:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it appears to me that there were at LEAST two different dustups. However, they are not totally unrelated since the accounts of previous dustups have found their way into the court papers of the current dustup.--Filll (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Insert:Since the relevance has been brought into dispute, please link to the source, and provide the location therein, of this citation, and how it is actually in keeping with Wikipedia policies.

tooMuchData

18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Court discovery processes have a tendency to turn up old skeletons (as well as masses of old trivia) as a byproduct. Unless/until these old skeletons actually get used in the court case, there's really no reason to consider them to be "related". Otherwise we could conceivably shoehorn the entire article into this one section, as I suspect most of the issues discussed would be mentioned in discovered documents somewhere. HrafnTalkStalk 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
What I looked at was a report discussing an Australian judge's investigation of this current matter, that also included several previous difficulties including the necrophilia and witchcraft charges. I need to go and look at this all more carefully since clearly we are going to be fought tooth and nail on this by assorted characters with biases and agendas.--Filll (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Filll, was this a hardcopy report, or on the net? If net, could you let me know the url? I would like to see what someone unaffilitated has to say on the matter.LowKey (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Have a look at CMI's extensive documentation, and then justify calling RNCSE report a "more involved analysis". It is a precis, and apparently included here in order to get John Mackay's claims mentioned. I have seen the 'court papers involved with the current dustup' and they don't even include ALL of the current dustup (only the areas involved directly in the claim) let alone the 20 year old falling out. How little is 'a little investigation'? There is a statement that "we do not describe details in our article". Of course not, because describing the details would result in the reader perhaps drawing a different conclusion to the one that the editors seem to wish them to draw. The statement above (by Filll? apologies if not) that creationist orgs claim that evolution is the source of all evil is a complete misrepresentation; as creationist orgs KEEP EXPLAINING. Some editors here seem to watch these orgs quite closely, and yet hear nothing that they say without filtering it through their own prejudice. The above talk seems to indicate that at least some editors view this article (and others like it) as a vehicle warn readers about creationist orgs. Pure POV and political agenda. As usual for almost anything of any importance on WP. LowKey (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

LowKey you are showing your hand here. And how many hundred references showing that creationist organizations claim evolution is the source of all evil do you want? Good heavens. Why on earth do you have a problem with what they scream at the top of their lungs over and over and over? I guess because it makes them seem like complete idiots? Well too bad, that is what they do and have done for a good century and they show no sign of stopping. The upcoming "Expelled" movie is chockablock with the same lies and nonsense. So you will get another chance to see them spew very soon. But you are free to claim it never happens, even though the more you claim it, the less credibility you have. Goodness.--Filll (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only "how many" but also "how long" -- William Jennings Bryan blamed it for World War I. HrafnTalkStalk 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If I was showing my hand you would probably be offended (it's an ugly hand, with a few bits missing). There is no need for me to claim it never happens. You claim it happens: back it up. I don't need hundreds of references. A representative sampling would have done nicely :) . By asking why I "have a problem with with what they scream at the top of their lungs" you have even demonstrated my own point about filtering it through your own prejudice. My problem is with the twisting of what they DO say into this claim that evolution "is the source of all evil". What the creationist claim is that the evil things that particular people do (or did) is consistent with (and yes even consequent to) their own evolutionist world view. That is not the same thing at all. Read what they say carefully, and compare it with what you say they say. It doesn't match. LowKey (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Already documented: Objections to evolution#Evolution leads to immorality and social ills has some, Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics has more. Bryan's views can be found in The Creationists, pages 55-56. HrafnTalkStalk 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In order: Objections to evolution#Evolution leads to immorality and social ills, the statement was "Contrary to their claims that evolution is the source of all the evil and social ills in the world". Equating the "Objection" article to that statement is equivalent to saying that since we recognise that smoking can lead to disease we are therefore claiming that smoking is the cause of all disease. There is nothing there to indicate that creationists claim that evolution is the source of all evil. Really, this ought to be enough, the actual article about objections to evolution does not support the claim. Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Campaigns to link evolution to nazism and eugenics, to start with IDers and Creationists are not the same and should not be considered interchangeable (personnally I think IDers are trying for a foot in either camp, and not doing so well at it) but more importantly the quote begins with the quite specific "Darwinism did not produce the holocaust" so again this does not support the claim that creationist (or IDers) attribute evolution to be the source of all evil. I don't have The Creationists so I will leave that be for now, but feel free to quote something from it at me if you wish. Yes creationists say that evolution (or rather evolutionism, to be technical) leads to evils and ills. If you disagree, that is your prerogative. If you despise creationists (and/or IDers) for that then that is your prerogative, but at least make sure that it is for THEIR views and claims not your own re-definition of them. LowKey (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
So the "all" was slight hyperbole, so what? The list of "social ills and evils" attributed to evolution is still ludicrously long. Yes, ID is a form of Creationism, specifically Neo-creationism. The expert and legal opinion on that is unequivocal. If you want to argue this point then you're welcome to take this argument somewhere else: wikipedia is not a forum. HrafnTalkStalk 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn. This is not a debate forum. And all creationists do not make the same claims. And it is a bit of hyperbole of course to say that creationists claim that all evil in the world is due to a belief in evolution, but probably few if any creationists claim evolution is responsible for obesity (which it probably is in reality). However, it is true and well documented in reference after reference that various creationists have claimed that belief in evolution was or is responsible for Communism, the Holocaust, teenage pregnancy, unwed mothers, divorce, abortion, high school dropouts, drug usage, Naziism, the murder rate, slavery, racism, and on and on. Some even claim that the persecutors of the nation of Israel in the bible were secretly evolutionists, and evolution is a theory that has been used for evil purposes for thousands of years (like Henry M. Morris and others). Look at the references in the articles Hrafn pointed out, not just our wording there (some of which I am responsible for, so I would not claim it is perfect). To argue this point is just beyond ludicrous, but if you really want to argue it, you need to go to another website. That is not what this is for. Unless you can present us with a peer-reviewed article in a mainstream journal that shows that all or most creationists do not claim that belief in evolution causes societal ills or has caused any social problems of any kind, this discussion is pointless and is finished.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not looking for a debate forum. The discussion that I read above indicated an editing agenda based on a (faulty) POV. That was what I was challenging. I was trying to keep my objection as general as possible. I probably didn't manage that, but I did avoid going into a detailed analysis of the agenda and POV that I could see. I am not criticising anyone for having a POV. That would be foolish. I do have a major objection to editors not recognising that their own POV is a POV. I am not currently editing articles (to avoid apparently inevitable edit wars over POV), but I am trying to get editors to at least see their own biases and agendas. I do notice that Filll's statement certainly has more qualifiers than before. Why could it not have been stated like that before? That last comment is over the top, though. It's not an all or nothing proposition. I never said that creationists don't blaim evolution for any social ills; I objected to the repeated characterisation that they blaim evolution for all evil and social ills. "Slight hyperbole" and "a bit of hyperbole" indeed. Does anyone recall typing "scream at the top of their lungs"? Anyway, like I say below, I think Mackay's claims have been given undue weight because of their sensational nature. It should either be left out, or some of the many other details should be there alongside it.LowKey (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. You are acting as though you want a debate forum, which this is not. And of course every single person has their own bias and POV. Who claimed otherwise? And I stand by my statements about "screaming at the top of their lungs", based on my own personal experiences and observations of creationists. What I put here on the talk pages is not supposed to meet the same standards as what I write in the articles. Who told you it should? As I said before, provide me peer-reviewed mainstream references that creationists do not claim that belief in evolution leads or has lead to social ills. That is the only thing relevant here since this is about improving the articles on Wikipedia. If you cannot, oh well, I guess you do not have a leg to stand on, do you? As for what appears in or out of these articles, that is a matter of consensus mainly, which I do not think you have. And you have argued below that this matter is so important it deserves a whole long separate article with summaries in the other articles, and now you claim it should not appear at all. So, I am afraid you have minimal credibility, especially when taken in light of your other comments. I have one thing to say to you. Find me references.--Filll (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not advocating that the Mackay accusations get their own article. I meant the whole AIG/CMI dispute/split might be better off with its own article. Sorry if I did not make that clear (it was getting late here & I was getting sleepy).LowKey (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you realise that you have asked me to stick to a standard in talk pages that you just finished saying does not apply to you. I was not attempting to start a debate; I was attempting to highlight an apparent bias in editorial paradigm.LowKey (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I also might point out that if you look at intelligent design, you will see we have a good 10 or 20 peer-reviewed references as WP:RS that show that intelligent design is a form of creationism. The only people who claim it is not are (1) intelligent design people who want to maintain a legal fiction to try to trick the US courts, which has not worked so far and possibly (2) other creationists who are jealous about the funding of the Discovery Institute and angry and can't believe that those stupid intelligent design people will not just come out and do the right thing and declare that they are for God and biblical literalism, somehow missing the entire legal fine points and the Wedge Strategy.--Filll (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I said above that I thought IDers were trying to keep a foot in both camps. I think the difference is that IDers are not approaching this from a position of Biblical innerancy. They are (or at least they say they are) approaching this from a viewpoint of a conclusion arrived at independantly of Biblical accounts. I think this is why neither evolutionists or (mainstream) creationists put much stock in IDers intellectual honesty.LowKey (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (Fixed a couple of typos LowKey (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

I may have been wrong

It looks like the Mackay accusations may be relevant to the case, as Ham has apparently now reconciled with Mackay, in order to get access to an Australian creationist network now that he is at odds with CMI. Lippard discusses this on his blog (which is therefore probably not a WP:RS), but further information can be found from CMI, BCSE & probably other places. HrafnTalkStalk 04:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The various relationships with AIG, CMI et al people, past and present probably are relevant to a full understanding of the whole tangled mess. That still does not make Mackay's accusations relevant to CMI's legal claim against AIG. They also should not be singled out for specific mention in a summary of the dispute, as it is much less relevant than other occurences, like AIG US apparently cutting off AIG Canada financially (very early on in all of this) or staff at AIG UK apparently attempting to register CMI domain names for itself, or AIG US apparently trying to trademark CMI's publication in the US. These relatively recent goings on are not mentioned but Mackay's 20 year old exploits feature. Smacks of sensationalism. Of course if it were to be mentioned ALONG with all of that other, then it would a different kettle of fish. Has anyone considered a separate article for the dispute (since the info seems to keep getting duplicated/triplicated between the AIG, CMI and Ken Ham articles)? LowKey (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant if the CMI have raised the issue (as they apparently have), as part of their case against AiG. Whether it is being given WP:UNDUE weight is a different matter. HrafnTalkStalk 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we actually agree there. CMI have publicly mentioned the issue while laying out the whole saga, but it wasn't in their Statement of Claim lodged with the Supreme Court of Queensland. I do personally believe it is being given undue weight simply because it is sensational, making WP more tabloid than encyclopedia. I am also increasingly thinking a seperate article could be more practical. Leave a basic acknowledgement and summary in the articles about the various parties, but put the details all in one place. LowKey (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point if this becomes a bigger issue we will write a separate subsiduary article. I am a bit loathe to be more specific about the allegations against the secretary in the article for WP:BLP reasons, and just basic fairness. Frankly I do not really believe the charges; the only relevant and interesting thing here is that this community of supposedly upstanding perfect Christians who deign to cast aspersions on everyone else on planet earth and especially scientists as being walking incarnations of the devil, would stoop to such low levels. The claims of financial malfeasance and lying and cheating on the part of Ken Ham and others I completely believe, I am sorry to say.

However, as I said above, this is nothing new for such people. Look at Ted Haggard. Look at Kent Hovind. Look at Jimmy Swaggert. Look at Jim Bakker. Look at Garner Ted Armstrong. And so on and so forth. The list is long. The list is ugly. It is not that this is unusual behavior for human beings. It just is a bit hypocritical for the very individuals who are so frantic to attack and comdemn others, cursing them and judging them and spewing hatred, turn out to be personally even worse than the people they are attacking. Just an interesting pattern, repeated over and over and over and over. --Filll (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you're at it again. "Walking incarnations of the devil"? is that a bit of hyperbole? Just exactly who is spewing hatred here? Actually I agree that the list is long and ugly and yes they are hypocrites. However I think that if you think that most Christians are cursing, judging and spewing hatred, then you need to listen a little more carefully. At least I hope so, because that is certainly far from my experience. I am a Christian and I do not hate you, or condemn you, or judge you. How can I condemn you, when I am no less deserving of condemnation? I have no right to judge you; that is God's right. I love you even though I don't know you, because God loves you. I am not talking about emotional attachment or other such warm fuzzies. I discuss POV etc with you because I believe you need to hear (er... read) it. I pray for you (even if that offends you). But anyway, yes the list above is appalling. The CMI/AIG dispute makes me feel sick, but I think it is important that people have access to accurate information about the whole thing (truth is important). It is interesting to note that even such vested commentaries as the Lippard Blog say that CMI actually seem to have been digilently blameless in this. So yes they are upstanding, but not perfect.LowKey (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


I do not claim that all Christians are like this. In fact, contrary to what characters like Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati and Kent Hovind and Ken Ham say, the vast majority of Christians have no problem with evolution. None. About 80-90% of US Christians belong to denominations that officially have no problem with evolution. The percentage is even greater in other countries. The only groups that do have a problem with evolution are these extreme radical fundamentalist groups, who frankly are sort of looney in their demands for biblical literalism (which few of their own members agree with in anonymous surveys), and is contrary to a good 2000 years of assorted church pronouncements and biblical scholarship by figures like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo and Origen.

What I have a problem with are certain groups that claim "believe what I believe or you are not a real Christian" or "believe what I believe or you are damned and going to hell and filthy and evil". And these creationist ministries have a tendency to gravitate towards those views, unfortunately. I think it is just a money making scheme, frankly, since they want to pull people away from other sects etc. And clearly money is at the root of a lot of this, as we are discussing here.

"These creationist ministries" have explicitly disavowed such claims several times. So no problem  :) LowKey (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are also lots of these groups who deny that the golden rule appears anywhere in the bible or that Jesus is quoted in the bible as stating "love thy neighbors as thyself". I have had many arguments with fundamentalists along these lines who deny that the God of the bible wants us to love each other (at least the God of the New Testament) since they are so wrapped up in hatred for their fellow man and they spew it at every opportunity. Similarly I have heard many sermons from "preachers" in these sorts of faiths who spew long diatribes about how they hate everyone around them and if you want to be a good Christian you have to hate hate hate. Hmmm...

"Lots of these groups" I must say that the Christian landscape where you are must be completely different to here, as I have never come across such a group. Where do you go to sermons like that? Around here I think a preacher would get to do that exactly once. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." may sound pithy and trite, but it is certainly practiced by (almost) all of the Christians that I know.LowKey (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think that Kent Hovind or Ken Ham are really particularly Christian, at least as I understand Christianity. By their fruits ye shall know them, as the saying goes, and I am afraid their fruits are pretty rotten, in my humble opinion. But if you want to defend them be my guest. Just not here. Go to a debate website.--Filll (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1, I agree. 2, I agree. And 3,I have no wish to defend them.LowKey (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Schisms and accompanying accusations (of heresy and worse) are par for the course in creationist organisations. I think the article should be documenting, from WP:RS AiG's original schism with Mackay (in the 'History' section) and later rapprochement with him (in the section on its schism with CMI). The accusations of necrophilia, and associated takeover attempt, are part and parcel of that original schism. Given that Mackay was a co-founder with Ham of one of the constituent organisations of AiG his departure, and the circumstances of it, are clearly of note. HrafnTalkStalk 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if Mackay's accusations must be referenced, it should also be noted Mackay has also been excommunicated in relation to this and other matters, to avoid giving him undue weight. I agree that the 'History' section is a good place for this stuff. LowKey (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, all. Let me chime in since I sparked this discussion. When I read through the section, the necrophilia accusation of course raised my eyebrows and prompted me to check the cited source, since it was pretty sensational. I don't care whether this is typical of televangelists, etc.; I just wondered if it was accurate. Once I reviewed, it was clear that the WP sentence was both inaccurate (the who and when did not match what the cited source said) and of questionable notability in this context, since it wasn't in the legal claim itself (though, indeed, CMI has brought it up — not the allegation of necrophilia itself, but the allegation that AiG is willing to work with John Mackay — as a part of the entire dispute, beyond the legal dispute). So is the statement accurate now and significant enough to retain? I think the changes that have been made so far help improve the accuracy, but here are other changes I'm suggesting if we do decide to keep it. (I think the Mackay dispute would be out of place in the AiG history section, though, because it's not really a part of AiG's or CMI's history, but rather the former group CSF's history, which we don't have an article on. That is, to me it would seem misleading and POV to insert the Mackay allegation into the history section without a full, detailed history of CSF in both AiG and CMI's articles.
Anyway, here are my suggestions:
  1. Remove the word "legal" from the section title to broaden the section's scope and make the topic notable in context
  2. Reword this sentence:

A more involved analysis of the situation, including estranged co-founder John Mackay's charges of necrophilia and witchcraft against Margaret Buchanan, who was at the time Ken Ham's personal secretary and later married CMI's Carl Wieland, is described in an account in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education.

That sentence now more accurately reflects the original (1987) allegation; it doesn't explain what that has to do with the current conflict and still doesn't explain when the necorphilia allegation was made, omissions that make it more sensationalistic and much less informational. I propose we modify it to:

A more involved analysis of the situation, including CMI's allegation that AiG-US has recently worked with John Mackay, estranged Creation Science Educational Media Services who was ousted in 1987 for charges of necrophilia and witchcraft against Margaret Buchanan (who was at the time Ken Ham's personal secretary and later married CMI's Carl Wieland), is described in an account in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education.

Of course, that sentence, with all its fragments, is pretty hard to understand, which I think shows the nuance of the situation and the unclear picture a single sentence (or fragment, as it was before) gives it. It seems like it would need its own paragraph at least. That said, I still think this part of the controversy is too tangential to merit that much space if we're not also going to give full paragraphs to every other charge CMI is making (that is, it does seem like undue weight on this one matter, especially since it's not a point of legal contention. So the whole thing does still seem unnecessarily aggrandized, even if it will be (with the changes I suggest, imho) accurate. Let me know what y'all think.
Finally, Filll, your comment that "the only relevant and interesting thing here is that this community of supposedly upstanding perfect Christians who deign to cast aspersions on everyone else on planet earth and especially scientists as being walking incarnations of the devil, would stoop to such low levels" seems out-of-place, though please don't misunderstand me. Beyond that sentence's POV status, it just seems you are trying to twist the story and fit it in to the wrong place so that it gets light. No reliable source that has been cited shows that any "community" (regardless of composition) was ever casting aspersions about Margaret Buchanan; rather it was one person twenty years ago before either AiG or CMI existed. Throwing that topic out there, with incorrect attributions, and without explaining what it has to do with the current controversy is clearly POV (undue weight). I still think both those areas (overall accuracy and proper weight / appropriate treatment) need to be addressed. CricketChirp (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, perhaps the wording should be altered somewhat but I do not favor removing it based on the information I have seen. Probably what we will do is add many more sources and it will end up being far more damning for these creationist ministries in the end.--Filll (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, Filll, but I haven't found your comments helpful in resolving this issue. This is not a forum for discussing whether we like Answers in Genesis and its people, or for trying to prop up every ounce of "damning" material against these orgs. This is about whether or not the information is (1) accurate (based on the cited sources), (2) NPOV (based on how the text is written and whether various topics are given proportional significance in the WP article, and (3) listed in the appropriate place in this article (or in another article). The initial "necrophilia" fragment was plainly inaccurate (whether intentionally or not) and seemed to receive undue weight in a perhaps inappropriate section in this article (if it should be in this article). If we leave that information in, all three of those issues must be addressed.
I've done some more reading on the topic as well. My first question has to do with reference 82 in the article, which is no longer available on CMI's site nor anywhere else on the web, as far as I found using Google[8] (the other pages just link back to the same CMI page that's no longer up). Without this page, and since the necrophilia allegation (or, more properly, the allegation that AIG-US is working with John Mackay) is not in the official court documents, can we even include the subject in the legal controversy section? CMI's page on John Mackay says nothing regarding AiG-US, either[9], and AIG-US's history mentions him only once[10]. All the other John Mackay mentions are in the bylines of old Creation Magazine articles.
Finally, read through the whole of [11]. It seems CMI has redacted their suggestion that AiG was trying to forge a relationship with John Mackay. The BCSE page quotes several paragraphs of this CMI page[12] that no longer exist — paragraphs that CMI apparently removed but that previously made the anti-AIG accusations. I know that's original research to some extent, of course; can anyone find anything else that would corroborate this redaction of CMI's allegations about the supposed 2006 AiG-Mackay connection? CricketChirp (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not understanding me. I do not deny that the wording might need improvement. I believe there is plenty of evidence that this material is part and parcel of the current dustup, even though it is dredged up from previous difficulties between and among these groups and individuals. For example, I came across a nice account of an independent investigation and report by the Queensland judiciary into the matter that describes how it all fits together. So the short answer is, we just have to do some digging. And your frantic efforts to whitewash things are not helpful and frankly reek to high heaven. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to any valid source (i.e., a source we can use in the article itself) for helping us document the legal controversy; can you provide a link to the account you reference (the Briese report, perhaps)? If there is "plenty of evidence," that's fine — although part of this issue is disagreement on what the evidence even indicates.
And also, quite frankly, I don't see that your continued name-calling comports with our attempts to fix this section constructively and as adults. I believe you are violating WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. I am asking you politely to stop. CricketChirp (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CricketChirp, please tell me explicitly with diffs what names I called you and how I violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If I have offended you, I apologize. I have said repeatedly here that the wording should be changed as you claimed. That is a problem?--Filll (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, Filll (it was your whitewashing comment that I took personally, since it seemed to impugn my motives and actions substantially, and that seemed to go against your agreement that we change the wording).
As for the account you referenced, can you post a link? Thanks! CricketChirp (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I still do not like NCSE's analysis being described as "more in depth" as it is clearly NOT more in depth than the history and reports made avalaible than CMI themselves. BTW the current location of that is [13], last updated 11 Feb. Perhaps "another analysis" would be more appropriate. I also still think that Mackay's accusations are being given undue weight. AIG/KH's rapprochement with Mackay is a single example given of presumed bad faith actions, and it is a fair way down the list at that (& there are new ones added in the 11 Feb update above). The sensational nature of the accusations seems to be the chief merit of mentioning them at all. LowKey (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and Filll is the 'nice account' that you came across perchance Clarrie Briese's chairman's report? If so, you need to realise that he is not part of the Queensland Judiciary. He is the former Chief Magistrate of New South Wales local courts, and was a member of the New South Wales Crime Commission. The investigation that he & his committee undertook was at the invitation of CMI. It came BEFORE the legal claim, and the legal claim was the recommended course of action that came out of the investigation. Also, CMI's dispute page has now been updated again (as of 25 Feb). LowKey (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that my NCSE article is not accurately described as "more in depth" than CMI's summary and collection of documents. Lippard (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin of life and evolution

Changed scientific community to evolutionist community. Creation scientists are part of the Scientific community. Many have Ph.D's in physics, biology, etc... and many have published in peer reviewed journals (although obviously not pro-evolution ones). They may be the minority, but they are part of the total body of scientists. Talk origins speaks for evolutionist scientists, not the entire body of scientists or science as a whole. Jkorz (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No they are not -- they are part of the Christian apologetics community. They generate no useful scientific research, merely cover for certain scientifically-discredited doctrinal views. HrafnTalkStalk 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, by that reasoning, evolutionary scientists are ruled out of the scientific community as well. They generate no useful scientific research. They merely propagate certain scientifically discredited views. Examples: peppered moth, Ernst Hakel's developmental drawings. 67.177.139.14 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Bart Simpson for that cutting piece of 'you-too' rhetoric based on an obvious deep understanding of the breadth and depth of evolutionary research and its contribution to science. HrafnTalkStalk 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Added minor qualifiers here: so "virtually no support among the scientific community" and "considered pseudoscience by a vast majority of the scientific community". These accurately portray the situation without having to argue about exactly who is in the community. It is certainly true that the number of people who could reasonably be considered scientists and support AiG's views is non-zero. On the other hand it is very, very small indeed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the "virtually" qualifier is gone again. I tried to reinstate it, but apparantly I need a citation to revert an uncited deletion. Wikipedia never fails to disappoint. Reading over the article statement again in an attempt to re-frame it in a more acceptable way to all, I see that the whole statement is incorrect anyway. To start with AiG do not propose baraminology, it has already been proposed by field specific scientists (they would therefore be members of the scientific community); also baraminology is not an attempt to explain the origin of life, merely to provide a workable classification system based on created kinds rather than axiomatically presuming common descent. I was going to lift something from baraminology for this article but when I read the breathtaking POV at the end, including the stunning claim that the descent of all of earth's life from a common ancestor has actually been tested, I decided to give it a miss. LowKey (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reinstated "virtually". I personally think that "virtually no support" is a serious under-estimate, but it at least acknowledges non-zero support. I fully expect to get reverted. LowKey (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to claim something ("virtually no support") then it must be sourced.[14] If the qualifier is going to be added then it must be attributed to something. This is no such qualifier in any court case that has been upheld.
You can't put something into the article ("virtually") that implies there is support, even a little, of these ideas without a support. If you have any citation from a scientific organizationt that claims this it can be added. Until then the article says something that isn't backed by a source. In fact, sources such as Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, saying "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes".[15] That fact is much different from what is claimed in the article. Feerzeey (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence as nothing in the source mention anything that supports anything claimed in the paragraph. The source is about some creationists misunderstandings on Abiogenesis. It does not belong with any of the text. Feerzeey (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If the cite doesn't match the article text - which is what I think you said there - then question it here in the talk page. You would have seen above that I already pointed out that baraminology is not about abiogensis, but about classification. However, one shouldn't just delete chunks of other people's work (mostly not mine, by the way). It is also hypocritical to say that "X has no Y" needs NO supporting citation but to say "X has almost no Y" needs citation. As the first statement is an absolute, it would be more reasonable to expect it to have extensive citation. An absolute negative is absolutely falsified by a single positive. As baraminology was proposed by a member of the scientific community then even if no one ELSE supported it, the first statement would still be false while the second would still be true. I checked the talk.origins source and I note that the claim was reasonable and was not answered by the response. To me it seems more a case that the creationist objection to naturalistic abiogensis is misunderstood. Producing (racemized) amino acids in a lab shows that (racemized) amino acids can be produced in a lab. The same goes for proteins. Abiogenesis as a natural process remains speculation until the natural process can be identified and tested. By analogy, setting fire to things may demonstrate combustion but it does not prove or test spontaneous combustion. Creationists and IDers support abiogenesis, by the way - just with the understanding that it took an intelligence to produce it. You also added a quote from a Human Rights org (ie NOT part of the scientific community) criticising creationism. If you wish to quote a source, quote a relevant source, and put the quote in the relevant article (that would be [creation_science]). The way you stuck that quite inflammatory quote in via one edit and followed up with another edit pretty much straight away verges on vandalism. I notice you seem to be a new editor, but you already have a formidable number of contributions (over only 3 or so days). If you step cautiously, and courteously then your experience is sure to be more rewarding than otherwise. LowKey (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
LowKey, I disputed a claim and removed a qualifier that was without a citation. You readded it. Then I looked at the source and found the entire section without any reference. Since I know that the claim is false and it is without evidence, I removed it. I added a source from the Council of Europe, which oversees such things as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and European Court of Human Rights-- that is its not a "Human Rights org" its the international European body of law with a Parliament and court. Feerzeey (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PS LowKey, looking at your editting history: You have been on wikipedia for over a THREE years and have less than 100 edits. The majority of which seem to be about young Earth creationism and downplaying the reality of its anti-science. Feerzeey (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, and pointed out a little lower (but still above) I AGREE that the section was at odds with the reference, and in fact did not make a whole lot of sense. BUT the consensus was to leave it as it was. From what I saw, you simply removed the qualifier apparently without reading why it was there in the first. Your dispute of the claim seems to have come later. And I ALSO dispute the claim (albeit for different reasons - I saw it as a complete non sequitur). The point is that one should avoid heavy handed editing but one should seek consensus and make use of the article talk pages. That doesn't mean just plonking one opinion into the talk page (as some do) but reading what has gone before.
As to my own edit history; quantity <> quality. I contribute to a relatively small number of articles, and my activity on each is commensurate with the general editing activity on those articles. My editing in YEC related articles is largely in the talk pages, attempting to keep the articles moderate and accurate. I have found the anti-YEC editors to be much more dogmatic and fervent than the pro-YEC editors. In general, they seem to think that their POV is manifestly self evident and needs no further justification, but opposing POVs are therefore manifestfly false and must be challenged. I think it comes with subscribing to the majority viewpoint. Regarding your 'anti-science' comment - it is patent flame-bait. I suggest you research a little more thouroughly what pro-YEC scientists say & do, rather than what the anti-YEC say they say and do. Perhaps start with Dr Russell Humphreys' specific predictions regarding planetary magnetic fields, which have thus far been confirmed by probe observations. The whole thing is pretty scientific. Okay, I am starting to get a little sarcastic now so it's time to leave for a bit. LowKey (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Section Header

I changed the subsection header in the criticism section from "From creationists" to "From other Christians". While "Creationist" technically does include Old Earth Creationists like Hugh Ross (and he does refer to himself as a Creationist), in the popular mind the term "creationist" is so bound up with Young Earth Creationists that I think the title will mislead readers into thinking it's about criticism from other Young Earthers (not that there isn't some of that too). "Creationsists" in the sense of including anyone who believes the universe was created rather than just happened by accident, encompasses pretty much all Christians too, so the new header is accurate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a section of Mainstream critics and a separate section called From other Christians, the implication is that mainstream critics are Christian. That is not necessarily true. It is much simpler and clearer to have a "mainstream" section and a "creationist" section because 1) that is how it is on other articles and 2) all the organizations critical of AiG in that section identify themselves as Creationists. Regardless of your opinion on whether others might read the title (and not the content) to get a wrong idea on YEC, they are all creationists. The article must reflect that label, not your opinion of internal creationist politicing. We66er (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How does it imply that "mainstream" critics are Christians?
Yes they are all creationists, but they are all Christians too. a) the label is too general in it's correct, technical sense, and b) it's too narrow in its popular sense. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You have two sections: From other Christians and Mainstream critics. You are either implying: Mainstream critics are not Christians (which is false= some scientists are Christians) or that Mainstream critics are the other Christians, which is not always true (not all scientists are Christians). We66er (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If its correct and how they identify themselves then that's what the title should be. You changed the title, which has been on the page for a period of time, implying consensus, based on your view that popularity of a particular viewpoint might "mislead readers into thinking it's about criticism from other Young Earthers." Maybe we should let readers read the actual content and report the criticism accurately according to it source (self-identified creationists).
The section does not have Christian criticisms, it has creationist criticims. There is a difference.
By the way: "... rather than just happened by accident" show a very fundamental misunderstanding of science. We66er (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I was simplifying for the non-scientists present. Please don't nitpick. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a second. Are we identifying individuals and groups by how they identify themselves (and/or are 'officially' identified) or by how 3rd parties define them? This is dealt with rather inconsistently on WP, particularly with groups or people that are considered 'fringe'. If we go by by self-identifiers then We66er is correct above, but we would then need to clean up many other articles. If we identify people by 3rd party definitions than DJ Clayworth is correct to change the header, but we still have a number of other article to clean up. We could just of course opt to continue identifying people in whichever way seems to fit our POV of the people in question (that's a general statement, BTW, and not aimed at any specific editors - it's human and the reason why consensus is so useful). Less work in the short term but we inevitably wind up back here disagreeing over how best to identify some group or other. Is there a guideline on this? (I assume that there probably is, but just now I really do not have the time to look for it).LowKey (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The distinguishing feature between these two groups appears to be whether they are scientists speaking from within the ('mainstream' of the) scientific consensus or creationists speaking from outside it. A theistic evolutionist scientist (Kenneth R. Miller for example, assuming he made a statement specifically about AiG) would be both 'mainstream' and 'Christian' but not 'Creationist'. As they sit more comfortably in the 'mainstream' category, it makes sense to make the alternative 'creationist' rather than the very vague and overlapping 'other Christians'. That many people conflate Creationism with YEC should not be considered for two reasons: (i) we should be educating readers not pandering to their misconceptions & (ii) 'Other Christians' quite legitimately includes AiG's fellow YECs in any case. HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's accurate. Our own definition of Creationism includes theistic evolutionists, assuming the God they believe in is a Creator God. However I don't think this is a big enough issue to argue over. I'll let the original title stand. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue in that section is the people/groups disagreeing on creation and science. Thus, the heading should reflect that. We66er (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
No, theistic evolution is discussed in the article on creationism. The definition in the introduction states that:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

As theistic evolutionists (i) don't believe that either humanity, life, or the Earth "were created in their original form by a deity" (but only that the Universe was) and (ii) do not reject evolution, they are not "creationists" by that article's definition. HrafnTalkStalk 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Humanity, life and the Earth are all part of the Universe. If the Universe was created then so were they. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? We66er (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What was it you didn't understand about that statement? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that (i) your interpretation renders "humanity, life, the Earth" superfluous & (ii) it would define as 'Creationists' many (including a number of prominent scientists, theologians, etc) who have been vocally anti-Creationism and fully supportive of the scientific consensus. Such a definition is neither useful nor in keeping with common usage. Further your definition renders all Christians Creationists, so results in the two rival Section Headers becoming virtually synonymous, at least in the American context. HrafnTalkStalk 05:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That's my point, Hrafn. You are reiterating something I said in my first post.
Can I suggest that people actually go and read the Creationism article, where theistic evolution is clearly listed under "types of creationism". That article also disagrees with your statement that theistic evolutionists don't believe that humanity, life or the Earth were created by God (unsurprisingly: it's fairly fundamental to being a Christian to believe everything was created by God). The article on theistic evolution disagrees also. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Where does theistic evolution state that they believe that "humanity, life or the Earth were created by God"? My impression is that they believe that God created the universe (presumably by causing the Big Bang) and that first the planets, then life on Earth, then humanity, thereafter evolved as a natural consequence of that creation. The first point may be reading between the lines, but the latter two seem to be implicit in the statement "compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution" (though I've yet to see somebody who only accepts "some" to self-identify as a TE). This compatibility with science is to a lesser (e.g. Progressive Creationism) or greater (e.g. YEC) extent rejected by Creationists. Including TEs as Creationists would appear to be idiosyncratic in terms of (i) how they self-identify (with science, against creationists), (ii) how even 'big tent' Creationist movements like ID identify them (as the enemy), and (iii) how the academic literature treats them (e.g. The Creationists, which mentions them only as a contrast to and/or as a start/end point for Creationists moving to/away from science, rather than a topic for examination in and of themselves). HrafnTalkStalk 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting theological approach to distinguish between things that God created originally and things that 'evolved' later. It means you can't say "that person is God's creation" because they weren't around at the point of creation. Also remember that most Young Earth Creationists believe in a huge and intense period of evolution (though they rarely call it that) between the Flood and the present day. Even the Young Earthers cannot say that God created the Universe in the form in which it is now.
But to come back to the main point: you may think this an "ideosyncratic" definition of creationism, but it is the one which Wikipedia espouses. Once again I say "go and read the article on Creationism". You will find that theistic evolutionists are considered creationists by the article, and are included in the definition used in the article. If you want to argue against it I suggest you do so there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've changed the ground under people's feet, having just found a WP:RS distinguishing the (rarely used) term 'Evolutionary Creationism' from the more common term 'Theistic evolution'. As the relevant articles appear to cite no WP:RS placing TE within creationism, I have also tagged the TE section in Creationism as potentially off-topic. The problem with the definition in Creationism isn't so much that it is idiosyncratic as that it is ambiguous as to whether Universe-created/Earth+Life+Humans-then-evolved is included or excluded. The aforementioned RS places even EC in the 'evolutionary' camp in terms of 'Evolution versus Creationism' (the title of the book). RSs trump uncited wikipedia definitions. HrafnTalkStalk 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When I said "go and read the article on Creationism" I did not mean "edit it to conform to your views without consulting anybody". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:V, uncited material can be replaced by cited material (even if it contradicts the original) at any time. Live with it. HrafnTalkStalk 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No it's not ambiguous. If you believe the Universe was created, you are a Creationist. I know there are a number of groups, usually Young Earthers, who want to polarise the debate so that they can lay hold of the title "Creationist" and label everyone else "Evolutionist", but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should bow to them. It is also irreponsible to create a false dichotomy, claiming that if you believe evolution occurs then you can't be a "Creationist". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, your interpretation does not appear to be supported by TEs, Creationists or scholars of creationism. Please cite a WP:RS if you want this viewpoint to have any credibility. HrafnTalkStalk 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute with CMI - again

I have reinstated an older edit of mine regarding the AIG-CMI dispute that Hrafn had reverted. Apologies for not bringing this up earlier, but I only now noticed it. The reasons for the edit (and for reinstating it) are: to start with the old reference to CMI's many documents links to only one of those documents instead of to CMI's summary page with links to most of the documents, so I updated the reference. I think that this update was actually collateral damage in the revert. The major reason for deleting the reference to Jim Lippard's review is because the review is much less detailed than CMI's own summary and documents, and does not offer anything of substance that is not already in referenced by CMI (the article called it 'more detailed' which Jim Lippard agreed is not accurate). I took out the McKay reference along with it because it is also referenced in CMI's documents (i.e. redundant) and it is NOT part of the legal dispute. It is background to the background to the background. McKay's accusations WERE bizarre, they were also made two decades ago and widely rejected/refuted by the major parties to BOTH sides of the current dispute. McKay's accusations seem only to rate a mention because they are sensational (and the mention contains little more than the fact that the accusations were made). I repeat the accusations themselves are not part of the current dispute, while the reference to them in the article clearly indicated that they are. If they are to be mentioned, than it should be as a rounded explanation of WHO Mckay is, WHEN he made the accusations, WHAT the response was and WHY it is relevant to the current situation (i.e. the fact that CMI are currently accusing Ken Ham of associating with McKay in apparent bad faith).

Alternatively, the McKay 'episode' maybe should be mentioned more fully in History. That way a passing reference in the dispute section can actually before informative.

Having said all that, this dispute is an ongoing matter, and currently has its own article. Maybe this article should have a basic summary and efforts can be made to keep the 'dispute' article up to date. It could also then be a fuller article about the whole of the dispute, and not just the civil suit. McKay would certainly rate a mention in that case.

Okay, so there are three parts to my edit. The cite, the review/summary, and the accusations. The cite stands on its own merit. The review/summary is manifestly redundant. The accusations at least deserve fuller explanation and really belong elsewhere.LowKey (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And I have partially reverted back again (omitting the two disputed words "more involved") as:

  1. The original gives useful information about the politics/bizarre accusations involved in the infighting within AiG, that has a bearing on the split.
  2. Third party sourcing is always preferable to sourcing to one of the combatants.

HrafnTalkStalk 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Did you mean to revert the CMI docs link as well? It’s back to the “Why we are suing” link instead of the “what it’s all about” link. The “what it’s all about” link is superior (and contains a link to the other, anyway). By the way, AIG have published their own set of documents (but it’s apparently semi covert, and I don’t have a ready URL at the moment).

Re your point 2, fair enough. I would prefer a neutral 3rd party source instead of a hostile one, but I don’t think there are any neutral commentators worth quoting.

About your point 1, you have completely missed the mark. You see it as ‘useful information’ about a history of politics/infighting when it is nothing of the sort. McKay was in trouble on several fronts at the time, both within erstwhile-CSF and within his local church and denomination. It was all about HIS actions, not office politics or infighting at CSF. And there was AT LEAST 15 years (conservatively) between that episode and the current dispute. McKay’s only current involvement has come about as result of the split, not vice versa. The statement as it is indicates that McKay’s ACCUSATIONS are a part of the dispute, when they simply are not. It also scans as if they are current accusations, rather than 20 years old. The statement is factually misleading. Put the McKay saga in History, or even in its own section, but it does not belong with the current dispute. As it stands it is hype, not encyclopaedic.LowKey (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusing a rival's secretary of "necrophilia and witchcraft" would appear to be a fairly vicious example of infighting. I did not claim that McKay was an innocent victim of it. If you wish to expand this material into a section that can fit into the article chronologically (rather than being merely mentioned in the context that brought it to light), then you are welcome to do so. HrafnTalkStalk 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Was the Columbine Massacre also a "vicious example of infighting"? I was not trying to imply that you were claiming that McKay was innocent. Rather, I was pointing out that his bizarre actions were not limited to CSF, but were broader and involved people within CSF and people that had no relationship with CSF at all. I have dated McKay's accusations so that readers can make what they will of their inclusion in the current dispute. I also changed 'charges' to 'allegations' as charges seemed to imply a more formal kind of accusations and perhaps give them undue weight, given the thorough debunking of the accusations. LowKey (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I will also change the CMI docs link again, or is there an actual reason for preferring the old link? LowKey (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Me again, I was looking over the previous discussion about the McKay reference, as I cannot recall the concensus on inclusion/exclusion of the secretary's name. Lo and behold, that whole section was started by Hrafn, saying (in 3 edits on 20 Feb 2008):

I read the cited source -- the only mention it makes of necrophilia was of accusations made by co-founder John Mackay (who
split with AiG) against "Margaret Buchanan, who at the time was Ken Ham's widowed personal secretary". I therefore think 
that the passage needs a rewrite, at the very least. 

Although a date wasn't given, it seems apparent that these charges were made long before the AiG/CMI split, so are they
really relevant to the section they're in?
  
Thinking about it, this probably belongs in a paragraph about the Mackay/AiG split in the 'History' section.

What's going on here? I am sure that this is what I am saying, too, but Hrafn is the one arguing against these very points. What changed your mind?LowKey (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"If you wish to expand this material into a section that can fit into the article chronologically" ... "this probably belongs in a paragraph about the Mackay/AiG split in the 'History' section" -- no real change here. I am reverting this material's removal not its placement. HrafnTalkStalk 06:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


So should we remove the secretary's name? She was after all the victim of unfounded and debunked accusations of the worst order. Should we continue to associate her name with the accusations? LowKey (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Criticisms

I have re-included the criticism of the museum into the History section. Preferred WP style is to include any controversies/criticisms within the main text, where appropriate. The existence of a Criticism section is not ideal, but is generally used as a sort of dumping ground for notable criticisms that don't fit the general flow of the article. Like I said, Criticism sections are not ideal, so we should be trying to move the text within it to the main article, not the other way around. Ashmoo (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanger

I removed some material concerning Sanger that appeared irrelevant to this article. Unless AIG has something to say about Sanger, or Sanger had something to say about AIG, then we shouldn't mention Sanger. We're not here to prove or disprove what AIG stands for, we're just here to summarize what relaible sources say about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. I wonder if similar material is 'allowed' in her article? rossnixon 06:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub Class?

This page warrents at least a C-Class rating. Perhaps a B-Class? I was surprised to see it only has been listed as a stub still. Is there any particular reason?Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Terms

Note:

Darwin was not opposed to Lamarkism, and in fact accepted it himself, and made a refined variant of the same concept under the name of "Pangenesis"; so there's more than one mistaken person here; even basic biology texts reference the fact that Darwin accepted Lamarkism before death: the concept is in the Origin of the Species, in fact (though under the the 'Pangenesis' label). The real problem here is taking "TalkOrigins" as a reliable or precise source, whereas it's a popular, but neither rigorous nor precise one; Darwinism was a system that wholly incorporated Lamarkism, but in its own unique way.

Furthermore, even if Stalin breathed-out "I reject Darwinism", it doesn't mean he used the term precisely; and as far as I can tell, none of you are even talking very precisely; today, whenever the public uses "evolution", it's usually referring to an odd mixture Darwinian evolution and modern theory; however when scientists use the term, they're typically referring to what they call "Neo-Darwinian Theory" or "Neo-Darwinism", not "Darwinian Evolution". The points of refutation of Darwin's theory, supplied by his own pen, are all met, and accordingly the theory has been heavily modified (evolve or die in science).

What's likely, if I gather the arguments here correctly, is that Stalin was rejecting developments current in his time, not, however, "Darwinism" in his time entirely, if the term is used accurately: rhetorically screwing with his audiences, so to speak.

As for the original research accusations: they are correct, Rabindch: Wikipedia is a pain in the butt with being very rigid with its requirements, even if logical, but no offense, you don't seem to know your terms or concepts very well, or perhaps you're too eager to pick a fight with AiG's claims.

No offense, but hobbyist biologists are annoying.

And yes, I know I'm 2 years late to this conversation.

tooMuchData

18:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)<--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me after this arrow--)-->

Notability

Also, I'd like to bring attention to this topic: the "Answers in a Creation" group seems like an even further-fringe one with few who take it seriously, even among creationists, with a few zealous editors either as the group, or supporters, writing themselves into Wikipedia and into the pages of groups with which they have a bone to pick. On the discussion section of their Wikipedia page someone writes (and I respond below that, though note when I "sign" on wikipedia it never works correctly):

Um, does AIC meet WP:WEB?JoshuaZ 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

AIC appears to be a small organisation with a few supporters on WP - it is not even mentioned on large YEC orgs like "Answers in Genesis" (which do answer a few OECs like Hugh Ross). How else could a Christian org have "pro" bias on Wikipedia? This is why AIC is in a lot of "external link" sections, lol.

Yoda921 08:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

This is what I'm wondering: taking a look at it, they are not only a practical unknown, but it appears, they, or an interested party, are aggressively writing themselves into Wikipedia. enerally I wouldn't do this, as I like having comprehensive references available, however after having seen a few conflicts about notability on some other pages (Christian and otherwise), and the way that Wikipedia's policies tend to direct the expungement of unnotables, I would suggest the removal of this article, and the group's tampering on other pages. I don't think they meet the requirements regarding citations either (here WP:Reliable sources).

tooMuchData

18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC) <--(that's where the tilde's go, but it always says "too much data" and gives the date: so I'm guessing the system will autosign for me, as it usually does, after this arrow--)-->
  1. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp
  2. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box
  3. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
  4. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp
  5. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box
  6. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
  7. ^ The Galileo 'twist'