Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 4

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


 * No one is interested in what AiG actually has to say. The purpose of this article, as can be clearly seen, is to ridicule AiG in as many ways as possible.  The idea of NPOV is unknown to the editors of this article.  Unless it agrees with their view, it cannot be put in the article.  There is no such thing as a neutral 3rd-party article about AiG.  The nature of the Evolution/Creation debate is that you are one or the other.  And Evolutionists have the upper hand by sheer weight of numbers.  How can so many be wrong?  Ask the Jews in Auschwitz.....   Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Epic FAIL! See WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ and Godwin's law. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is NO AGF in this article, it's plain-as-day purpose is to ridicule AiG. The ONLY sources that are allowed and considered verifiable are biased and bigoted NON-Creationary, evolutionary sources.  ANY Creationary source is AUTOMATICALLY eliminated as undue-weight and/or fringe and/or OR.  That is CENSORSHIP and propagandizing by twisting Policy.  Quoting or paraphrasing from Creationary sources is automatically labeled POV, while quoting or paraphrasing from evolutionary sources is NPOV.  More bigotry, more censorship.  Since Nazism came naturally out of Evolutionism the comparison is apt.  Wake up and smell the ordure.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whew. You are never going to be happy here, it is very clear. If you are going to refuse the possibility of Good Faith in editors with whom you disagree, I don't think you are going to get very far.  You clearly, by the way, don't understand what POV and NPOV mean.  You're comments about Nazism are not only wrong, they are a bit concerning. Will you please make it clear that you are not calling editors Nazis?
 * Nazism did come from survival-of-the-fittest Evolutionism, that is a fact. Are other editors Nazis. No.  But, the use of sources is selected to give a negative impression, and the exclusion of sources to give a more neutral light, is typical censorship.  Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Christian Skeptic, your bizarre ideas of "facts" don't suggest that you're well placed to know WP:NPOV when you see it. Much as you would like to censor all critical views, that's not how WP works. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear Hear! WP only censors certain critical views. :)   While using Auschwitz as an example above may have been ill-considered, I don't think it was actually comparing WP with Nazis, at least until after the invocation of Godwin's Law.  Regardless, can we get back to useful discussion about the "Views on Science" section?  Who's views is the section about, and therefore who is the most reliable source for those views?  I would say AiG in both cases.  The repetitious reminders that they're views are unpopular and the quoting hostile sources to explain AiG's views comes across as case-making and therefore POV. You could probably add "AiG are wrong" as the last sentence of every paragraph and without particularly changing the tone of the article.LowKey (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 See WP:PSCI – How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention? The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute ''fairly'..... .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So the section is not about AiG's views on science but on the "majority view" of AiG's view? Is it an article about AiG or not?  The description of the main views belongs in the articles about the main views.  The description of AiG's views should be in this article but IS NOT.  Fine; describe it as the minority view that it is, but at least describe the view as it is expressed by those holding and promoting the view.  The description is not there, only the rebuttal of the view (or the view on the view, if you will).  This exact discussion comes up over & over again, and I am frankly finding it harder and harder to AGF and easier and easier to see the censorship that CS complains about.  Why is it so hard to see that the ONLY RS for what a party (any party) THINKS is that party when they tell you what they think?  How can that possibly be unfair?  You can't fairly describe the dispute about a view until you fairly describe the view that is in dispute.LowKey (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article. . dave souza, talk 14:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks to me as though there are over 50 inline citations to AIG's website. LowKey, how many would be enough for you if 50+ isn't enough? 18 of them are in the Views on science section. And you can't AGF and see censorship? dougweller (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like I was getting a bit over the top there. Apologies.  It was late, I was tired, and frustration was leaking through.  The statement I am particularly focussed on is the last one in the lead of the section.  It uses a third party source to say that AiG reject natural science (a term I have not come across before).  The statement has been problematic from the start, being changed around and around, and also being moved about the article.  Maybe it should be two statements, one to say what AiG say their view is, and the other to say what the mainstream thinks of this view.  I am just getting tired of watching this statement go back and forth repeatedly.LowKey (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * It's contained in earlier versions (e.g. ) of the cited page. I'll wayback the ref to reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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

Science is not sacred :)

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


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


 * Science is not sacred, but denialism exists. I refuse to consider the belief that the cosmos is under 10,000 years old just another opinion. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! The belief has been tested and proven time and time again by Christians and many critical researchers of the bible. It appears, in my angle, that evolution is based on opinion as there are many unknowns about the exact time a creature became another creature and so forth. In my oppinion, it is better to see simmilarity as evidence for a common DESIGN rather than a common ANCESTOR. (John) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.24.85 (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think whoever just posted this clearly misunderstood what (s)he was replying to. Aunt Entropy's remark strikes me as pro-Darwin, not anti-Darwin.

Scientific Community
There is some disagreement about whether or not the scientists at AiG are considered as part of the "scientific community." As one user put in his second revert, "Rvt: they have excluded themselves from the scientific community (to the extent that they were ever part of it), and are part of the Christian apologetics community." I disagree with this conclusion; the "exclusion" as far as I can tell is a matter of merely individual standards and judgment, and the inclusion of "to whatever extent they were ever a part of it" strikes me as rather prejudicial. Further, I do not believe that the two communities mentioned are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that if the scientists working with AiG are reputable and contribute research to peer-reviewed journals, they are part of said scientific community, whether their views on the subject of creation are in the minority of said community or not. As a result, my understanding is that AiG is a part of the scientific community, albeit a vast minority. Are there any further thoughts on this? - Qi na el &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "It seems to me that if the scientists working with AiG are reputable and contribute research to peer-reviewed journals…" Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Further, even if it can be demonstrated that some (or even all) of AiG's meagre list of PhDs has done some legitimate scientific research does not mean that AiG itself is part of the scientific community (any more than a single member of it being a pigeon fancier makes it a member of the pigeon fancying community). AiG is a Christian apologetics ministry, devoted to the promotion of pseudosciences such as Creation science and Flood geology. This clearly places the organisation outside, and in opposition to, the scientific community. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. AIG is a strictly religious organization, and certainly not part of the scientific community. Some of the member may be, but do any of the members even publish in reputable peer-reviewed scientific venues? And if they do, do they support AIG positions in those papers or do they segregate science and religion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


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


 * This page does seem to list scientists who submit articles to peer reviewed journals, and thus are part of "the scientific community;" similarly this page giving a listing of various names. The problem here is arising over a single word: Whether "the pronouncements of AiG are considered psuedoscience among the scientific community" or "among the majority of the scientific community." It's strikingly clear that there are, like it or not, scientists who agree with AiG's positions and who are members of the scientific community. A minority? Certainly. Non-existent? That, to me, seems misleading at best given that it is in an article on the very subject at hand. - Qi na el  &lambda;&alpha;&lambda;&epsilon;&omega; &#124; δίδωμι 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of the only two 'scientists' listed work for AiG, nor does this article, or a related one linked to it, list any recent scientific publications by them, nor would having a couple of employees on the fringe of the scientific community have made AiG itself part of the scientific community (as I pointed out above), even if they were AiG employees with recent scientific publications. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 22:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * Yawn. The censorship card is played.  How tedious.  Christian Skeptic — if you really believe that this is the case, then you should be editing over at scientific literature where you can expose this with reliable sources.  To state that YEC isn't published because of censorship is simply ridiculous.  Scientists, and the journals that publish them, love to topple establishment apple carts, and ideas don't get much more establishment than evolution.  If there were any sense to YEC "ideas", scientists and journals would falling over themselves to publish them and claim the fame for themselves.  That they don't is supremely telling.  But hey, who am I to rock your conspiracy theory?  --P LUMBAGO  15:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy and censorship aside (why would a Geology journal not publish a solid scientific paper showing that dating methods don't work? Evolution does not even come into this...), if the two paradigms are "mutually exclusive", then the adherents can't both be part of the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Christian Skeptic's conspiracy theory was well-rebutted in detail in an issue of the National Science Education's journal (the journal title escapes me at the moment) devoted in its entirety to the film "Expelled". They showed that many of the creationist objections to evolutionary science have indeed been aired in academia and been rebutted quite effectively. As Eugenie Scott put it quite effectively (after several pages of documentation), the creationists were not in fact "expelled", they "flunked out".--WickerGuy (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

Age of Earth according to AiG
The article claims that AiG thinks that the earth was formed "within the last 10,000+ years". First, it would be 10,000- since only very few if any YEC folks beleive in a world created more than 10,000 years ago. Second, I think that AiG promotes the view that the earth is only 6000 years old plus or minus one or two thousand years. They do mention that there are "some" YECs that promote an older earth of around 10,000 years, but none of the "calculations" given on AiG come up with anything other than around 6,000 years. I am going to delete the 10,000 year bit.Desoto10 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution and Origin of Life
There was a citation needed tag on the first sentence in this section since August. The sentence claims that AiG agrees with the scientific consensus that origin of life and evolution are different topics. Going through the website I do not find this to be the case. If someone has a reference for this speak up, please.Desoto10 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good move. There is no definite consensus anyway. PZ Myers has admitted that they are not really different topics. rossnixon 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. Do you have a RS? Of course the two are often conflated in the US public discussion, but they are quite distinct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly the 3rd paragraph on this page of Myer's blog: is.gd/4GyE8 rossnixon 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this page? Your cryptic key does not appear, but it matches the edit summary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at what AiG thinks about abiogenesis and evolution. From the cite, it is not entirely clear what they mean so I put in quotes. PZ definitely says that it is disingenious to separate evolution from abiogenesis, but I don't know why he says this. As for scientific consensus on the topic, I always thought that most scientists felt that they were entirely separate topics but I don't have a ref.Desoto10 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like rather much of this page, undue weight and equal validity was being given to uncontested creationist claims. I've cited a reliable source that abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis from evolutionary theory, which takes it as axiomatic that self-replicating life existed in the distant past, whatever its origin. PZ makes the point that evolutionary theories point the way to possible explanations of abiogenesis, but Darwinists would note that evolution works regardless of how life was first breathed into one or a few organisms ;) The last paragraph went over the same issue, so I've added sourced info and moved it up next to the abio bit. . dave souza, talk 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You misspelled "into a few forms or into one" [] ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better.Desoto10 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The page currently reads "They calculate the probability of a cell spontaneously coming into existence as less than 1 in 10^1057800,[48] " however the link is broken and should be removed or re-cited. If re-cited, the calculation should be evaluated for statistical rigor. Mmart71 (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Death Penalty
I added a short sentence that AiG supports the death penalty. If you look at the given reference to the AiG webpage it appears as though they even support it if the person repents, saying that the state still has the right to kill the offender even if it does not now have the duty.Desoto10 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MOS and "however"
Please clarify how "however" violates the MOS. I just reread the MOS and don't find anything about not using 'however'. In fact, 'however' is used at least a dozen times in the MOS article itself. GCgeologist (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The MOS, as a guide, also violates the wikirule WP:NOTHOWTO, so whether the MOS guide for article pages follows itself is immaterial. Here's the relevant link on the words to avoid page. Auntie E. (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So MOS wasn't the relevant guide. This "however" thing is really splitting hairs.  It actually doesn't favor anything, just contrasts them, but I suppose there are some who read all kinds of stuff into things that aren't really there.  go figure....  GCgeologist (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific theories of cosmology
Within the article under "Cosmological Views and the Distant Starlight Problem" it states that the following: "They reject the scientific theories of cosmology." I would put forward that this line needs to be changed to read "They reject some of the mainstream scientific hypothesis that support dominant theories of cosmology." This would clear up the confusion that makes this line at "war" with the paragraphs that follow. The paragraphs that follow include new theories, many of which rely on widely accepted hypothesis. However, some of the hypothesis are rejected and others are used in its place to make a new theory. In the end, this line is confusing with the rest of the text. Scitea (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The plural is hypothesEs, not hypothesis. The only mainstream hypothesis mentioned is "redshift quantization" which itself is accepted by very few physicists, and even fewer of them would use it as grounds for stating the Milky Way is in any sense the center of the universe. The paragraph simply does not mention or appeal to any "widely accepted hypothesEs" as you say.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add this group and others like it to Categories: Cults
I think it's safe to say from the discussions on Wikipedia the past few years that we have enough consensus to start adding some of these organizations to Categories: Cults. Wikipedia's definition of a cult is "The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre", which I think some of these YEC and anti-evolution groups fall into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you need additional characteristics besides bizarre beliefs to turn something into a cult. While AiG is related to Christian fundamentalism (which some would call a cult), it is of itself primarily an organization promulgating pseudoscience. AiG does not of itself have any distinctive rituals or forms of worship. By your defintion, any group promoting a silly conspiracy theory would be considered a cult.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Some history
AIG was formerly CSF based in Australia and USA. CSF published Creation and Journal of Creation. After CFS split into AiG and CMI. AiG began publishing Answers Mag. and Answers tech Journal, and CMI has continued to publish Creation and Journal of Creation. The split was not due to philosophical issues but to personalities and mission differences. Nearly all the articles from one magazine could just as well be published in the other. AiG posts on their web site articles from Creation mag dating from before the split up, because CSF and AiG had the same beliefs. Sacramentosam (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have reverted the latest edit since, whatever the history, AiG chose to publish the articles on their website (not merely link somewhere else) which must imply they agree with the content. GDallimore (Talk) 10:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That may well be correct in the specific instance, but as an argument, it's very weak. People publish things they don't agree with all the time - academics, to foster discussion, libertarians and hackers to protest or circumvent censorship, comedians, to make fun of things, politicians, to ridicule the opposition... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Aig were any of these things and your comment is just a statement of the obvious that there are always going to be counter examples to anything (including this statement). There is zero reason to believe that AiG don't agree with the content of the information posted on their website. GDallimore (Talk) 15:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the publication in Answers where AiG takes responsibility for, and holds with the opinions expressed, in all issues of Creation ex nihilo/ Technical Journal?. Can you point to such a "party-line" statement in Answers itself regarding Answers?  At best, AiG staff publishing material in an AiG publication can reasonably be assumed to be expressing an opinion in relation to their employment or holding of a position—but this is a tenuous conclusion for ARJ which claims to be "peer reviewed" and thus exposed to a more general criticism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sacramentosam blocked as sockpuppet
See Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive - note that ChristianSkeptic is also a blocked sock of Allenroyboy. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Don't restore material based on a copyright violation. We don't know if these reflect the opinions of answers in genesis since they are in fact just a large scale verbatim copyright violation of another website. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No evidence it's a copyright violation either. The source is acknowledged and may well have been used with permission. Need evidence to conclude it is a copyright vio. GDallimore (Talk) 21:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but its the other way around. We need to show that content added to WIkipedia complies with our license. The presumption is that text is copyrighted, and we need either a clear fair use case, or an explicit statement that we are free to use it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I'm confused. I see no copyright violation by us here. If AiG violates copyrights is outside our sphere. We cannot link to known copyright violations, but in this case (if I understand it) I agree with GDallimore. If AiG publishes something on their website, the assumption is that they do so with permission. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They don't acknowledge the copyright of creation ministries and are not known for being an archive, so this is not a reasonable assumption. read the discussion here Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard/Large_scale_clean-ups/answersingenesis.comIRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The content is being removed as a large scale clean up of copyright violations: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Large_scale_clean-ups. Further, it is being used to state the opinions of Answers in Genesis but is in fact a large scale verbatim copy of a magazine, there is no way we can reliably conclude that it represents their views as they most likely have not reviewed the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Followed the links. There's zero consensus that this is a copyright violation issue. One person stated it was without reasons, another person said it wasn't and the discussion then diverted onto the (totally relevant!) topic of whether AiG was a reliable source for anything except themselves. Copyright violation is a non-issus without either evidence or consensus and it is wrong to make large scale, sweeping edits without consensus. Every way you look at it, the recent edits to this article are bad edits, and against policy. GDallimore (Talk) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and on the topic of whether it represents their views, you've answered that question yourself: they are not known as an archive site. Consequently, they are not archiving materials, and can only be posting articles if they represent their viewpoint. GDallimore (Talk) 22:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then they are infringing on copyright. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work WP:C. There is a reasonable suspicion (lack of attribution), that they are a copyright violation of the creator's copyright. If it is in fact a copyright violation, knowingly directing someone to a content violation is itself infringement (see WP:C again). Also, we also don't know if the opinions of the creation website are the opinions of Answers in Genesis so we can't just substitute in the non-infringing link in this particular case. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "There is a reasonable suspicion (lack of attribution)". That's exactly my point: it IS attributed, therefore there is no reason to be suspicious, reasonable or otherwise. GDallimore (Talk) 22:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All I see is © Copyright 2012 Answers in Genesis, no other copyright notices. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the core: another organisation owns the copyright, AiG claims to own it, its clear copyright violation. In most cases this can be resolved by citing the actual journal such as Technical Journal and linking to the archive that the Technical Journal owner has.  But when, for example TJ is used to claim an opinion that AiG holds, this is unmaintainable.  AiG does publish Answers and Answers Research Journal, they also appear to have extensive publication of content that they actually own and isn't in copyright violation. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a journal (not a scientific one, not a great one, but a it claims to be a journal), and the copyright is held by the author, the journal is just the publisher, by stating, like here on the by line that the author is  Steven A. Austin along with date and journal published in, isn't that acknowledging copyright? A general site footer that has a blanket copyright on it isn't definitive proof that they're claiming copyright. They have a Use Policy that specifically addresses the copyrights on the journals, articles, etc... —  raeky  t  02:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not acknowledging copyright, Steven Austin does not hold the copyright and the only copyright notification is for Answers in Genesis itself. The use-policy appears to refer to the Answers in genesis own journal, once again they fail to acknowledge the copyright of creation ministries here as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AIG
Why is the position of creation science being removed from the article? Per WP:FRINGE it is required that a fringe theory or it's organizations be unduly legitimized. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * People have been edit warring over it. I'm going to be over 3RR. I have no clue why something that's been there for years, which helps the casual reader know that the AIG is full of pseudoscience and junk. I'm reverting and warning the other editor of his edit warring.
 * It HAS NOT been there for years. Does nobody pay attention to edit histories? It was added to the lead two days ago, I removed it as not being appropriate for the lead since it says nothing about AiG. Pretty simple. This is nothing to do with npov since there is no pov statement in the lead that needs neutralising, or at least there wasn't until this addition was made. The lead simply stated what AiG do and where they're based. How much more neutral do you want?
 * Adding this in is just asinine controversy bating. GDallimore (Talk) 19:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it is NOT being removed from the article, it is being removed from the lead. Why is everyone on a hair trigger and unable to actually read? GDallimore (Talk) 19:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rude, see WP:NPA. You're not convincing anyone. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have read the edit history. You've edit-warred on this article several times. If we're going to throw around lame accusations, WP:COI possibly? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if this is a unnecessary question, but wouldn't the sentence in question ("The scientific community considers creation science to be pseudoscience which "shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing." Consequently, scientific and scholarly organizations, including United States National Academy of Sciences, the Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society of Canada have issued statements against the teaching of creationism.") be better suited for the "Views on Science" section? This article is about Answers in Genesis as an organization, so, while I certainly agree with the added sentence, I would think it is an unnecessary addition to the lead. As an example, see Flat Earth Society; there's no need to add in the lead "modern scientific consensus is that the Earth is an oblate spheroid" with all sorts of supporting citations, as the article is primarily about the organization promoting the ridiculous theories, not the theories themselves. As this page is about the organization, I think the lead should be about the organization. HMman (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC).
 * That's a reasonable question, but it's not what we do with just about any other article about a pseudoscientific concept. The lead ALWAYS (at least in the articles I've seen, I'm not going to review the thousands of pseudoscientific tripe that pervades Wikipedia) qualifies the article with the scientific consensus. AiG denies evolution, and it should be clear from the outset. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising agency for AiG or any other lame pseudoscientific outfit. The lead's purpose is to summarize the whole article. Leaving out the long-standing edit that science thinks AiG is full of shit (OK, that's how I would write it) is useful to the casual reader. It is simply NPOV. Deleting it would somehow legitimize AiG as a real scientific outfit, rather than the Xtian evolution denying cult that it is. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With regards to the Flat Earth Society strawman argument, if I edited the article, I would insist on the same thing as here. However, the number of people who think the earth is flat is so small as to be hysterical. In the USA, for example, I think that like 40% of the population thinks that the world is 6000 years old. It's a different problem with this article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean; I look at this article as a person who takes "AiG is full of shit" (as you concisely put it) as a given, hence I see no need for the clarification. Perhaps the lead could be reworded a bit to have two paragraphs: one for AiG as an organization and one for their views on evolution? HMman (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Still see no evidence that SR can read. This is an article about AiG, not about creationism. All this fringe stuff is irrelevant since there is no debate over whether or not AiG exists. The article shouldn't be used as a vehicle to parade their views (and the lead doesn't do this) nor should it be used as an excuse to attack them (something which the lead currently does, but didn't until 2 days ago). I still have no idea where this "it's been in the article for years" tripe has come from. GDallimore (Talk) 12:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact he's been responding to posts here is ample evidence of his literacy; let's keep things civil. As SkepticalRaptor pointed out, the lead's purpose is to summarize the article. Since a fairly significant part of the article is devoted to their views on science and morality and the resulting criticism, as it should be if it's to give a comprehensive explanation of AiG, the lead should reflect this. Getting back to IRWolfie's original post, in WP:FRINGE it states "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea" [emphasis mine]. This article isn't about a mainstream idea (scientifically mainstream, that is; unfortunately it is far more mainstream in the general public than it should be), so it is forced by it's nature to lend undue weight to their ideas, as IRWolfie said.
 * I agree the lead isn't currently worded as well as it could be; that is why I suggested two paragraphs for the lead. The first paragraph could be for AiG (basically as the lead was before) and the second paragraph could give a brief summary of their views vs. science's views. That way, the criticism would be balanced with examples of AiG's position, and the original lead's structure would be retained. Would you have any problem with something like this? HMman (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC).


 * My main problem is SR acting like a dick and still not admitting he was wrong on essentially every point of fact he raised when reverting me. I'm waiting for him to admit his mistake and apologise.
 * As for article content, I don't see why the lead needs extensive debate about AiG's viewpoint. That's what the YEC article is for and what that article already does. Nothing more needs to be said than who AiG are and what they do. Now, there is bound to be endless criticism of what they do, and that can and should go in the article and should probably go in the lead. But criticism of YEC itself separate from AiG's promotion of it is just point-scoring against AiG's and its supporters rather than good editorial style and needlessly spreads a contentious topic away from its main focus into the fringes of wikipedia. Similarly, of course, this article should not be a storehouse for AiG's anti-evolution rants since this is an article about AiG, not about their particular reasons for rejecting evolution.
 * I only got wind of this article due to dubious applications of copyright policy (I am a patent attorney) and haven't had a chance to go through it in detail to check that it doesn't go off on needless tangents throughout, but the recent (I stress again, "recent") additions to the lead were just inappropriate whatever the article content. GDallimore (Talk) 20:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You lack consensus for the change you are suggesting. Also, the consensus is that SR is super awesome. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake. Did IQ's drop rapidly while I was away? I am not suggesting a change!!!! GDallimore (Talk) 22:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're agreed on the current version. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The current version is the result of A RECENT ADDITION. How is this so hard to understand or is everyone just being deliberately obtuse? GDallimore (Talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice. But your change lacks consensus. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was never any consensus for the addition of this materila to the lead. How hard is that to understand? GDallimore (Talk) 23:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's plenty of consensus to me. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No there isn't, because I do not agree and HMman thinks it's out of place too. Per BRD, if you were actually to put your money where you mouth is and follow guidelines, says that this contentious material should be removed until consensus is reached for adding it in an acceptable manner. What is so difficult about this? GDallimore (Talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with HMman as well. But you are mischaracterizing the position of HMman, which is directly opposed to your suggested edit. Or have you changed your position without informing us? TippyGoomba (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Too many dickish editors who pretend to argue in a civil manner and are just passive agressive. I at least say what I think and get my facts right. And at least HMman tried to move the conversation forward. Have fun editing. GDallimore (Talk) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ark Encounter article
Should there be a separate article on it? -- Billybob2002 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Constant changes to introduction
A few editors seem to be making a lot of constant changes to the introduction, most of which end up implying that creationism is "another scientific theory" or that YECs merely "disagree" with "some scientists". It's a lot of weasel-wording, and it's not at all accurate. I think the current version works pretty well for the first part of the introduction:
 * Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism, rejecting the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and on the reality of common descent. It also advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and claims the correct interpretation of nature reveals the Bible to be scientifically accurate.

This establishes AiG's position, notes that they are opposed to the scientific consensus, provides the two major points they contend (age of Earth and common descent), and hints at the religious basis of it all. Is this generally acceptable? If so, I think any further nonminor changes ought to have to go through the talk page, at least for now. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Describing it as "...Christian apologetics ministry..." is surely incorrect. While AiG may self-describe as "Christian apologetics", as though they represent all Christians on the planet, nevertheless the article, by contrast, should not simply repeat this propaganda.  Yes, they do apologetics, but it is not at all representative of all Christianity worldwide (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) but rather of some relatively small particular branches (denominations, sects, etc.).  So I would suggest something like "AIG is a non-profit organisation with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism, ...".  If, somehow, this needs to include an association with a some form of Christianity, then perhaps "AIG is a non-profit fundamentalist Christian organisation with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism, ...". Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Biblical worldview?
So what's the (uncited) "Biblical worldview" that's inserted by this edit? Sure, AiG may describe its worldview that way, but given the diversity of world views present in the Bible, I don't see how this can be stated as a fact. Guettarda (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing the problem. This isn't really about the variety of concepts in the Bible as a whole, but about a literal portrayal of the beginning of Genesis. Maybe a different wording would be better? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a "Biblical worldview" it's Ken Ham interpretation of the Bible. No where does it say in the Bible that the Earth is less than 10 000 years. It's someone taking passages and doing math to claim that the Earth is "whatever age" according to HIS interpretation of the passages. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand better, and I do think it's a problem with the wording. Right now, it says that it displays "a young Earth", which I think also gets it wrong, because it isn't objectively what the Earth was when it was "young". I suggest changing it to "displaying a Young Earth creationist worldview". Would that satisfy everyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that it's a good compromise. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

AiG has a new logo
In case nobody has noticed, AiG recently adopted a new logo. Would someone please upload the new logo, as I cannot upload it myself? Thanks! --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical considerations
Some may consider this a minor topic but a particular grammatical problem plagues this entry. AiG is one, singular organization. When the organization is referred to in a sentence by name or with the term "AiG", it is correctly paired with the singular form of various verbs. However, when pronouns are used to refer to the organization, it is usually referred to as "they" or "their". These are plural pronouns. The following is an example taken from the entry(emphases mine): "Answers in Genesis BELIEVES that all stars and planetary bodies, including the Earth, were created around 6,000 years ago. THEY reject most of the mainstream scientific thinking behind dominant theories of physical cosmology." If AiG is being referred to as an one cohesive organization, with pronouncements issued under that rubric, the use of the plural pronoun "they" is simply incorrect. In several instances, the tenses are mixed in the same sentence. One needn't be an expert on the English language to know this is poor grammar. When referring to the organization AiG, plural pronouns and corresponding plural forms of various verbs should not be used. I have corrected a few of the obvious examples I have come across in this entry. However, this particular mistake is extremely common(the section dealing with abortion is an almost comical example) in this entry and I don't want to correct it completely if someone is just going to change the entry back to its original, grammatically-incorrect form.72.49.235.222 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Link

 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/ark-encounter-gay-employees_n_5691874.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Also, I think it might be time to fork and create a separate article for the Ark Encounter theme park. Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but that is a very controversial topic, so it might be tricky to write it. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it. Started from what's in this article. Would like to have something mainspace worthy by the park's opening in July. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

My accidental reversion
Sorry, User:Acdixon, big fingers on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. No worries. Just wanted to make sure there was no issue. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The age of the Earth and common descent of all life are facts of science
I edited the lede to indicate this. . jps (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this appears to be an improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess others disagree, but they don't seem to be commenting here for some reason. jps (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't commented here because I have been busy with our other discussion on Ken Ham. Just because AiG does not agree with evolution does not mean that they "deny" the theory. It is unnecessary, biased, and inflammatory. We don't need (and we shouldn't have) such wording. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course they "deny" the theory as they don't accept it and I don't see any third way possible. It's not biased to point out that they deny evolutionary theory. If it is inflammatory, then you should be able to explain why. None of your arguments are based in WP:PAG. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out that we need to WP:ASSERT facts and not pretend that the facts about common descent and the age of the Earth are just opinions. jps (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Big sections with only primary sources
I noticed the entire "Morality and social issues" section is completely based on AiG itself and Creation magazine. The only secondary, independent sources were provided as supplemental sources on the subject of AiG's opinion (i.e. they aren't about AiG's opinion). Wikipedia isn't here to republish an organization's website/positions, and it's not up to editors to determine what's important to include. We rely on other sources for that. If one of their positions isn't covered in reliable sources independent of AiG, they shouldn't be included. I removed the section. I anticipate that being controversial, but don't know what counter-argument there is without even one source establishing WP:WEIGHT. (I haven't looked at the rest of the article to see if the problem is pervasive -- thought I'd leave this message first and see where it goes). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Views on science" section has the exact same situation. Every single article detailing AiG's views on science and evolution are either primary sources or sources from Creation Ministries International, which used to be part of AiG. Should we remove this section too because of that?
 * In my view, I think removing these sections is unnecessary, as there is no better place to go to learn about AiG's views than AiG's website itself. The problem about third-party sources is that there are very few, if any, sources that fairly and accurately describe AiG's positions. It would be very hard to find any good sources that accurately describe AiG's positions. I don't think that means we should just avoid describing AiG's views though. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Beyond basic descriptive information (when it was founded, publications, etc.), I would support removing any sections dependent on the website. Regarding "no better place...", that something is true or exists does not mean we should include it. It may be a fine source to learn about their positions, but not about which of their positions are significant. For that we need to cite other people, and if other people aren't talking about them, it's WP:OR/WP:UNDUE to decide to include it anyway. This obviously cuts both ways, of course, because it means we don't draw from the website to promote the organization or help it to disseminate its messages, and it also means we can't pull just the bits we want to pick apart or which we think frames it in the most negative light. To be clear, though, we can certainly use the website as a source for its views -- but before doing so, other sources need to establish WP:WEIGHT to include those views. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW I did just take a look through the sources in the views on science section and agree it's mostly the same situation. The only secondary source I see which actually mentions AiG is this, which I'm not familiar with but doesn't appear to be the pinnacle of WP:RS itself. The others are scientific papers used just to refute AiG's positions (that don't actually mention AiG). There are a couple I don't have access to, but most are published before AiG was even formed, so couldn't actually be about AiG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point about WP:WEIGHT with the sections as currently constituted, however, I think a few of these topics can be re-introduced to the article using third-party sources. From working on the articles on the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, I know AiG's positions on homosexuality and eugenics/abortion have been the subject of some comment, as well as requiring employees to endorse their statement of faith, which covers a good bit of ground itself. I'm also sympathetic to 1990'sguy's concern about the fairness and accuracy of the sources, though. Many outlets that would be considered mainstream scarcely conceal their utter disdain for AiG and everything they do. We need to be careful about bias in the sources. Also, I saw at least one source that would probably pass WP:RS which recorded that AiG favors teaching creationism in the public schools, and many associate them with the intelligent design movement. Both of those directly contradict statements by AiG reps. I think in such cases, we should take AiG's statements over the third parties unless actions on the part of AiG clearly contradict those statements. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see your point on WP:WEIGHT, but, as Acdixon noted, since AiG is a very unpopular organization with very unpopular views, I do think that there is a large risk of the media distorting its beliefs (with the creationism in public schools example as well as others). We should re-add the "Morality and social issues" section, with third-party sources of course, but with the AiG website clearly taking precedence. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't disagree that some can be reintroduced/remain in the article. When we're thinking about reliable sources and npov, we're not looking to parrot what AiG says its beliefs are. We use reliable secondary sources, and base whether they're reliable on [among other things] whether they're qualified to comment on the subject (e.g. if it's about science, we would want sources known for their fact-checking and accuracy on science-related topics; if it's about AiG's interpretation of the Bible, we'd want sources known for their fact-checking and accuracy with regard to religion (very generally speaking of course). If an organization is painted by reliable sources in an unfavorable way, that's how we should be covering it. If AiG disputes the way it's presented, it's fair to include that, too. We shouldn't include biased sources, of course, but speaking about something negatively doesn't mean they're a biased source. If, for example, the New York Times writes a negative piece on AiG, we would probably include that, but probably not if the same article appeared on some atheism/skeptic blog. We don't want to accidentally (or intentionally) create a false balance or treat how an organization talks about itself as equal to how other reliable sources talk about it. In other words, if what AiG reps say something different from what a source like the New York Times says, that doesn't mean we take AiG over NYT. If anything, it would be the opposite, but I would think the best way would be to include both. Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only slightly. To use the creationism in public schools example, the source said AiG advocates the teaching of creationism in the public schools. AiG explicitly says they do not. I'm saying that, unless we find an instance of AiG folks actually advocating for teaching creationism in public schools, we should say that AiG does not advocate the teaching of creationism in public schools because their own reps and media properties are a more reliable source for their beliefs than is an outside entity with a (possible) bias against AiG. Same with intelligent design. Some outlets hold that creationism and intelligent design are equivalent (they are not) and therefore say AiG supports the theory of intelligent design. Ken Ham has been adamant, however, that AiG does not endorse intelligent design because it is not explicitly Christian. Therefore, we should not say that AiG endorses intelligent design but should instead report the words of AiG representatives regarding AiG's distinction between creationism and intelligent design. It's not about hiding negative things said about AiG by outside sources (as long as they are germane); it's just about properly representing the organization's beliefs rather than relying on external sources who may have misinterpreted or misrepresented them – deliberately or otherwise. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I understand. I know there's a lot of nuance to some of the terms that's often glossed, and it seems like a case-be-case basis makes sense. The point I really wanted to emphasize in this section, however (and I realize I'm at least partially responsible for the tangent), concerns those cases when we do not have at least one reliable secondary source establishing weight for a particular aspect of the subject. If weight is established, then we can talk about how to appropriately use them in the article (terms to use, etc.). &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * At the risk of blustering in late in the day, getting the wrong end of the stick, etc., it seems like a lot of what are important aspects of AiG's underlying theology / philosophy have been deleted on account of them being solely supported by AiG sources. I understand the need to include reliable secondary sources, but flagging content up to seek more (or any!) of these sources seems a better response than simply deleting it. Especially as some of it seems likely to be important to members of AiG (i.e. and pertinent to readers of Wikipedia who wish to know what AiG is all about). This isn't to say that some of what's now gone (> 12000 characters) shouldn't be gone, but omitting AiG's positions on schooling and social issues (that it has a strong demonstrated interest in) seems unwise. And, cf. one of the points raised above, using AiG as a source for itself at least reduces the risk of misrepresenting it. --P LUMBAGO 12:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I get this position, but "important" is your own judgment (and others, of course). Wikipedia only works as a crowdsourced encyclopedia because [among other things] we defer judgment of importance, by and large, to reliable secondary sources. That's an oversimplification of a Wikipedian's role, of course, but "it's important" is rarely an effective argument to "there are no reliable secondary sources supporting this". Lots of things would be useful to various groups of people, but it's the same idea as why we don't reproduce websites (or other primary materials) for software products, non-profits, or election campaigns. ...Even though those websites may be a good source of information on the subject, and even though that information might be useful to some people. That it's useful is why they have their own websites -- communicating information about this or that isn't why Wikipedia exists -- that's why organizations' own websites exist. On the flip side, those websites do not exist to summarize what reliable secondary sources say about the organization -- that's what Wikipedia does. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rhododendrites. Only getting sources from their own website is WP:OR, so we do need to get other sources. It may be difficult to do that, but the article will be better. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Concur that this is OR and unhelpful to reader's understanding of the topic. I read through the content and removed the undue / POV / OR statements. Please see edit summaries for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Original research tag
I've tagged the article as WP:OR as it currently contains over 60 citations to answersingenesis.org. I've trimmed a bit of the undue, OR content. Sample of the content removed:


 * In claiming that homosexuality is a sin, Answers in Genesis has cited writings by the Apostle Paul in and  as well as the Old Testament Law given to Israel which called for the punishment by death for those who commit homosexual acts in . Answers in Genesis believes that the punishments described in the Old Testament, such as Leviticus 20:13, were only valid under Old Testament law and served at that time to demonstrate what a serious departure these sins were from God's design.

This does not appear to be something belonging in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I trimmed some more OR but the article is still problematic: out of 82 citations, 30+ still come from answersingenesis.org.


 * Okay, I'll leave the article be for a while. What I found especially problematic in the recent edit is the discussion of "scientific consensus" and "creationist consensus" in the same context, as if there were on the same level. The piping used also seemed problematic (emphasis mine):


 * While the  general consensus of cosmologists  is that the horizon problem is solved by inflationary theory as a model for the universe, there is no creationist consensus on the solution to the distant starlight problem.

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

AiG personnel
I significantly reduced the amount of space devoted to AiG personnel, with this edit. To me, this read like CV material from AiG's web site (which it was :-) ). Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Doubled refs?
I noticed several references grouped two separate sources in one ref tag. At first I thought it was a "point-counterpoint" format, which would be understandable although, I think, problematic. But there are also duplicate sources hosted by different sites and simply related sources grouped together. As I can't think of any reason to do this rather than have one follow the other, I've ungrouped them. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)