Talk:Answers in Genesis

Pseudoscience
I want to know what gives someone the right to call someone else's scientific observations pseudoscience. Seems very biased to me. You have scientists who work for Answers in Genesis and have published work. Stooge78 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV and specifically WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia is biased but toward science. And Wikipedia has every right to call pseudoscience pseudoscience if that's what it is. Creation science is pseudoscience. This has been discussed extensively and you can see the discussions relating to this at the various articles that have a link to creation science. You may want to read past discussions - and the ones in the archives before commenting further. No creation scientists have had articles (related to creation science) published in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. Robynthehode (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If something goes against the secular worldview than it is automatically deemed wrong. Evidences for creation are abundant and yet they aren't taught because it goes against evolutionary concepts. I am glad you did say Wikipedia is biased though. They are biased towards their interpretation of the available evidence. Two people can look at the same observation and come to different conclusions. They don't want to admit there could be a creator because that would go against their naturalistic theories. If you were legitimate you would incorporate both sides and let the people decide for themselves but suppression of creation science is mainstream. 73.19.226.165 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @73.19.226.165 yes, Wikipedia needs to be biased. This article isn't biased. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Stooge78 Yeah, 99 precent of their ideas are based off of actual scientific fact supported by the Bible. Not pseudoscience. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm really struggling with the language here. Is "based off of" really proper English? I'm guessing it's supposed to mean what I would write as "based on", but it's pretty gruesome, and it might mean something very different, so can someone confirm? HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry, based off of is dialectal. I am from Idaho. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven look at their website. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or you could just give one example. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that YEC is at odds with many academic fields. And yup, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, even if they are right about some facts, they are not right overall. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Chances are that whatever the example is, talk.origins has refuted it decades ago. Can we please stop this? It is WP:OR anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Evolutionary bias
Shouldn't say "instead supports pseudoscientific creation science," because it is Opinion. It should say "instead supports creation science which has been considered pseudoscience. Then it would be less biased. WorldQuestioneer (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not opinion. If there was any evidence that the world was only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old.  Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation.  And yet it's only a select group of Christians and "token" Jews and Muslims, either American or influenced by American evangelical conservatism, who promote these claims.  That doesn't make those claims right, as we're not baptized in the name of Ken Ham, nor was he crucified, buried, and resurrected on our behalf. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag
are you suggesting that because the essay WP:CSECTION exists, no criticism section is allowed? Or that they can all be tagged without explanation? In general, I agree that we should be suspicious of any criticism/controversy section. In this case, however, hasn't everything been talked over extensively? Criticism sections are not disallowed after all. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No discussion on the talk page, thus improperly added and I've removed it. Doug Weller  talk 15:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:CSECTION is pretty self-explanatory. Per it, we should incorporate the contents into the other sections, or at least rename the section. Such sections are acceptable for general philosophies, worldviews, etc., but AiG is an organization. Such sections are inappropriate for any organization, irrespective of its views.
 * "In this case, however, hasn't everything been talked over extensively?" No, I don't think we've ever discussed whether to have a "Criticism" section. Of course, please correct me if I'm mistaken. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CORG applies. The criticisms are widely covered by parties uninvolved in the controversies. The tag should be removed. Firefangledfeathers 01:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The organization is controversial, even among fellow creationists, as shown by third party sources. Section is appropriate, tag is not. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The sourcing in the "Controversies" section (except for the "Legal action by Creation Ministries Int'l" sub-section) are weak and even include some non-WP:INDY and non-WP:RS sources. The content of the "Controversies" section could easily be incorporated into a "History" section (such a section doesn't exist, but the "Organization" section is largely historical material).
 * The fact that AiG, in general, is controversial isn't relevant. There are many controversial political and religious organizations in the U.S. and worldwide, both left and right, conservative and liberal. Thankfully, it's very rare for such organizations to have a section titled "Criticism" or "Controversy." There's no reason to make an exception for AiG. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You now have four editors disagreeing with you, no one supporting you. Doug Weller  talk 09:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * why doesn't your userpage here match the one at creationwiki saying where you are an editor? It's not as though you are trying to keep it secret. Doug Weller  talk 09:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I did not originally add the tag. User:Kind Tennis Fan did, and I just pinged him in case he wishes to weigh in.
 * 2) Please see WP:WIAPA: ...some types of comments are acceptable: ... Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. My Wikipedia edits/activities are separate from what I do on other Wikis (though I will note that I haven't edited CreationWiki since July 2018).
 * --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my assumption that you added the tag. I didn't make a personal attack, just asked a simple question. I agree with the statement "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." Well, more or less, as I also support WP:NONAZIS. I have no problem with Creationists who follow our guidelines and policies, and it's great if can keep your religious views from affecting your editing. But please note that an essay has nowhere near the weight of a guideline, and you seem to be quoting WP:CSECTION as though it's some sort of guideline. And the NPOV tag doesn't belong as there is still no discussion about how it violates our policy. Doug Weller  talk 16:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right that WP:CSECTION is an essay (obviously). But it's a very good procedure to follow, and I have cited/supported it for unrelated articles/topics multiple times in the past (though I can't remember specifics right now). I have explained why I think the current "Controversies" section violates the essay (1,2). I'll also emphasize that we're not talking about deleting any content, but merely moving it (along with the sub-headers) to other sections. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITICISM is pretty self-explanatory. FFF pointed to WP:CORG above, which is part of that very same page. Even still, nobody has presented any argument as to how it's an NPOV problem. And when you do, please don't just vaguewave an essay. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see this comment. And also please see the following at WP:CORG: If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms... As I noted, with the exception of one sub-section, the sourcing is poor, and the content could/should be moved to a "History" section. And yes, I oppose a "Controversies" section for Biologos, Heartland Institute, or any other such organization just as much as I do for AiG. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither CSECTION nor allegedly poor sourcing have anything to do with the NPOV tag. You are mixing three completely different things here. Kind Tennis Fan added the NPOV tag, probably out of ignorance of WP:FRINGE and without a thought of CSECTION or sourcing, and you jumped on the bandwagon with those two independent pseudo-justifications because you are familiar with FRINGE and know that Wikipedia will not pretend that science and fantasy are on the same footing. Sort of a quick ad-hoc Gish-gallop shotgun approach. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling is correct. You are talking about the criticism section, not justifying the NPOV tag. NPOV is a policy, criticism sections are covered by an essay and you definitely have to get consensus for that. So far I see no justification for your reinstatement of the POV tag and still think it should be removed. Doug Weller  talk 17:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a general NPOV tag. It's a criticism section tag. And there's nothing in WP:FRINGE that requires YEC-related organization article to have a "Criticism" and a "Controversies" section. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is there a "Criticism" AND a "Controversies" section? Maybe those should be merged. Also, I agree we should try to avoid calling out editors' other affiliations as dismissals. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is misleading that the template contains two links to WP:NPOV. When someone inserts it into an article that is regularly attack by profringe editors as being antifringe and therefore POV, it will look like more of the same. But that is not your fault, and not that of original editor KTF, and I half-retract what I said: you only mixed two different things.
 * That said, it is right that there should not even be a criticism section, let alone controversies section on top of it. If the article is written right, it should consist mainly of criticism anyway. That is the point of CSECTION: criticism should not be cooped away in its own section ghetto. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD, merged both sections and renamed them "Reception". Small improvement, but may not be enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 10:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement -- thanks. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, — Paleo Neonate  – 21:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hob Gadling for the changes, which I think is an improvement. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Dawkins interview
The sourcing in Answers in Genesis is not great. We have one from Prospect which doesn't appear to verify anything in the section, we have a chunk of text sourced to Dawkins himself, and then a piece from Australian Skepticsit would help to have some input on whether that source is reliable or not. Are there better sources that verify this content or suggest that it's due? Firefangledfeathers 16:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree -- the sourcing of this section is poor. Additionally, the sourcing of the "Anti-atheism billboards" sub-section also is poor (one of them is a non-RS blog). I don't think these two sections (along with the "Great Homeschool Conventions" section) should be removed, but their size, in comparison to their level of coverage by RSs, suggests they're WP:UNDUE in their current form. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence about "pseudoscience" should be removed
This article is very opinionated. 35.134.67.138 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See the article on creation science, where sources for its description as "pseudoscience" are shown. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hello IP. The statement is properly sourced. The fact that you don;t seem to like it is unfortunately not a reason to remove it. On Wikipedia, we just follow what the sources say. I also suggest that you read WP:FRINGE.--McSly (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP's first edit is this, with subsequent edit-warring. Then, introduction of fringe POV with subsequent edit-warring and protection of the article.
 * Any discussion will be pointless, they will probably soon replace some article with "PENIS!!!". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vandals who write swear words are occasionally funny. Creationists are just annoying. Dimadick (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Underplaying the very well thought out discussion on thermodynamics
The negative tone in the article does not do justice to very honest explanations of the options we are faced with when the theories and facts are viewed intelligently. So I think the article is trying to do the ad hominem trick to deter casual enquirers from putting in any effort to evaluate the clear arguments put out by AIG and I would be delighted to be proven wrong 105.8.7.130 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that to be proven wrong, you have to be right in the first place. You aren't. - Roxy the dog 18:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please tell me the "discussion on thermodynamics" is something other than the old "no order from disorder" canard? Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The AiG section on thermodynamics refers to 4 laws of matter/ energy and seems to address their relevance to the situation quite well for a casual enquirer to consider. 105.0.4.219 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That was believable, but up to the point when Ilya Prigogine got the Nobel Prize. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Prigogine was dumbfounded that his work was awarded the 1977 chemistry prize, so he was not under this impression. https://www.icr.org/article/thermodynamics-origin-life-part-i/
 * But we are trying to suggest improvements to the wiki article on AiG, not to resolve where the top academics have placed their bets. 105.8.2.248 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem of the origin of life can really only be resolved by recognition of the omnipotent Creator. The only alternative to belief in special creation is credulous faith in impotent Chance. That's sorry to say it, idiocy. While some philosophers rationally made the case for a Creator, the AiG defense is simply put idiocy. The AiG mindset is simply too blunt to comprehend modern science. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "The problem of the origin of life can really only be resolved by recognition of the omnipotent Creator. " That is the worst nonsense I have heard in years. Even if a creator deity existed, why would it be omnipotent? Dimadick (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)