Answers in Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
AiG's logo
Enlarge
AiG's logo
Part of the series on
Creationism

History of creationism
Creation in Genesis
Genesis as an allegory

Types of creationism:
Creation science
Intelligent design
Islamic creationism
Modern geocentrism
Neo-Creationism
Omphalos creationism
Old Earth creationism
Progressive creationism
Theistic evolution
Young Earth creationism

Controversy:
Creation vs. evolution
... in public education
Associated articles
Teach the Controversy

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on Young Earth Creationism, and a literal or plain[1] interpretation of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis.

Answers in Genesis believes that "the scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge," and that "[t]he doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ."[2]

The organization had offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In 2006 all but the US and UK branches became known as Creation Ministries International. AiG employs a staff of Christian evangelicals, some of whom have earned doctorates from secular universities in various sciences, including biology, geology, and astrophysics. In September 2004, its website, which is available in English and a number of other languages, had 35,000–47,000 visits per day.[3]

Contents

[edit] History

AiG co-founder Ken Ham.
Enlarge
AiG co-founder Ken Ham.

Answers in Genesis was started in Australia in the late 1970s by John Mackay, Ken Ham, and others who believed that the established Christian church's teaching of the Bible was being compromised in the face of ever-increasing attacks by secularists. The organisation was then known as Creation Science Educational Media Services, which later merged with the Creation Science Association to become the Creation Science Foundation (CSF).

In 1987, Ken Ham was seconded by CSF to work for the Institute for Creation Research in the United States, then in 1994 left ICR to found Answers In Genesis (USA). Later that year, CSF in Australia and other countries changed their names to Answers In Genesis. In February 2006, Answers in Genesis USA became independent (together with the UK office), retaining the brand name and the website. The Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and South African branches rebranded themselves as Creation Ministries International.

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,[4] named Answers.[5] It will no longer be distributing the former magazine in the United States. Answers in Genesis is also expanding into the non-English speaking world with translations and outreach ministry.

[edit] Dispute with CMI

In late 2006, Answers in Genesis became involved in a heated legal dispute with Creation Ministries International, the Australian offshoot of AiG. CMI has accused AiG-USA of damaging and publicly defaming their ministry.[1]

[edit] Teachings and beliefs

[edit] Methodology

Answers in Genesis describes their biblical hermeneutical method as "plain" (or sometimes "Historical-grammatical"), rather than "literal":

Simply put, our bottom line is that the proper interpretation of Scripture is to take it "plainly", meaning "as the author intended it to be understood by the original audience". This incorporates a literal interpretation of a literal context, poetic interpretation of poetic context, etc. This is covered in depth in the article "Should Genesis be taken literally?"[6]
With Genesis, we can tell it is meant to be historic narrative because it has all the grammatical features of Hebrew narrative, e.g., the first verb is a qatal (historic perfect), and the verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols (waw consecutives); it contains many "accusative particles" that mark the objects of verbs; and terms are often carefully defined.[7]

[edit] Apologetic method

Answers in Genesis emphasizes a presuppositional rather than an evidentialist approach to apologetics.[8] This is not to say that they deny the role of scientific evidence, but that they believe that all scientists start with axioms or presuppositions, which govern how the evidence is interpreted. Thus their view is a form of critical realism.

They believe, for example, a scientist with the presupposition that the Earth is billions of years old will interpret the Grand Canyon as an example of slow, drawn-out erosion. In contrast, they suggest a young earth creationist will see this as a rapid formation by catastrophic quantities of water. Answers in Genesis claims that an understanding of the legitimate biases people hold helps us to better discern between actual evidence and possibly faulty interpretations of the evidence.[9] Answers in Genesis says that neither view can be scientifically proved nor disproved, and they seek to show the evidence better fits with creation than evolution.

Answers in Genesis presents what they say are scientific arguments to support their primarily theological views of origins.[10] Many of their arguments against biological evolution are similar to those of the Intelligent design movement, whose position they do not fully agree with (such as disagreeing with the ID movement's views on the age of the Earth).

[edit] Views on cosmology and astronomy

Answers in Genesis believes that all stars and planetary bodies were likely formed around 6000 years ago, contemporaneously with Earth.[11] They dispute the big bang and inflationary theories of the beginning of the universe that require its age to be billions of years.[12]

A young universe is challenged by the distant starlight problem which presents the dilemma of how we can see light from objects millions or billions of light years away in a young universe. Some creationists have attempted to answer this with explanations involving God creating light en-route or by claiming that the speed of light was faster in the past, an argument also referred to as c-decay. Answers in Genesis rejects both of these proposed solutions[13] and prefers a model proposed by physicist and creationist Russell Humphreys.[14] Supporters of Humphreys' model, mostly young earth creationists, claim that it uses the theory of relativity to explain how billions of years could have passed in space while only a single day passed on earth. This creationist cosmology requires that our galaxy lie near the center of the universe. They believe they are supported by claims of quantized redshifts.[15]

Answers in Genesis draw a comparison between the distant starlight problem and the mainstram physics' 'horizon problem'.[16]

[edit] Morality and social issues

[edit] Science education

Answers in Genesis does not support laws or school board standards that would force the teaching of creationism in public schools. It is their position that forcing a teacher to present the theory of creation will only result in it being distorted by those who don't believe in it.[17] Instead of trying to change how evolution is taught in the public schools in what Answers in Genesis CEO Carl Wieland calls "top-down attempts" by "battering away at the education system, or the politicians, or the media", he would prefer to see influence driven by the "changing the hearts and minds of people within ‘God’s army’, the Church".[18] Answers in Genesis is opposed to what they consider censorship of educators who want to teach evidence they consider contradictory to the theory of evolution or why there is controversy regarding this subject.[19]

Answers in Genesis believes the problem also extends to Christian colleges and universities where, by AiG's own estimate, "probably more than 90%" of the professors do not believe in a young Earth. Only five regionally accredited Christian colleges offer young Earth oriented biology degrees and none offer geology degrees with a young Earth emphasis, according to AiG's Kurt Wise. The organization cites with concern a survey of Wheaton College students which indicated that while 47% of incoming students believed in a young Earth (about the U.S. national average), only 27% did so at the time the survey was taken.[20]

[edit] Life issues

Answers in Genesis takes a strong pro-life stance on abortion because they regard individual life as beginning at fertilization.[21] Thus they argue that the circumstances of the fertilization are irrelevant to its status as a human life which should be protected, so oppose abortion for rape and any other case,[22] except to save the life of the mother.[23] They are also strongly opposed to euthanasia,[24] and embryonic stem cell research, but support somatic/adult stem cell research which does not require the death of fetuses.[25]

[edit] Homosexuality

Answers in Genesis considers marriage to consist of one man and one woman for life,[26] based on Genesis 1:27[27] and Genesis 2:24,[28] which Jesus cited in Matthew 19:3-6[29] and Mark 10:5-9.[30] In claiming that homosexuality is a sin, Answers in Genesis has cited writings by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27[31] and 1 Corinthians 6:9[32] as well as the Old Testament Law given to Israel which called for the punishment by death for those who commit homosexual acts in Leviticus 20:13.[33] Answers in Genesis believes that the punishments described in the Old Testament Law, such as Leviticus 20:13, were for the Jews up to the time of Christ and have stated that they "reject the implication that we are proposing any sort of ill-treatment of homosexuals, or rejection of the sinner, as opposed to the sin."[34]

[edit] Evolution and race

AiG asserts that belief in evolutionary theory contributes to eugenics and racial theories which supported the policies of Nazi Germany in its prosecution of the Holocaust, as well as the evils of Soviet Communism under Stalin.[35]

The site also argues that a belief in evolution actively promotes racism, while Creationism, together with other Biblical mandates, can combat it.[36] To support these views, Answers in Genesis cites selections from early twentieth-century biology textbooks (such as Hunter's Civic Biology,[37] the textbook used in the Scopes Trial) which actively promotes views which are now thought of as racist or eugenic. AiG does not point out that support for eugenics fell out of scientific favor, as it did out of popular favor, during the 1930's and has not been either accepted or promoted by mainstream biologists since then.[2]

In dealing with Christendom's own violent history, 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 quotes Jesus' command to love your enemies.[38]

[edit] Culture and media

Answers in Genesis has accused Hollywood of using "subtle tactics" to slip in "evolutionary content".[39] Movies and television programs they have criticized for doing this include The Munsters, Lilo and Stitch, Bugs Bunny, Fantasia and Finding Nemo.[40]

[edit] Tax-exempt status

Answers in Genesis-US is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in the United States of America.[41]

The website of WCPO TV[42] has reported that in 2003, Answers in Genesis-US "did not meet all of the [Better Business] Bureau's accountability standards" (emphasis in original).[43] Bill Wise, then CEO of Answers in Genesis, answered that this was due to a "miscommunication, understanding regarding document submittals back in August of 2002."[43] Answers in Genesis-US is now listed as meeting each of the Better Business Bureau's 19 standards for charitable accountability.[44]

[edit] The Creation Museum

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Answers in Genesis in the United States started planning and constructing a Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, near the Greater Cincinnati International Airport, which will be used to explain Young-Earth creationist beliefs. According to Ham, "One of the main reasons we moved there was because we are within one hour's flight of 69 per cent of America's population."[45]

Amongst its various displays and exhibits, the museum is being designed to include life-size and even animatronic (animated and motion-sensitive) dinosaurs, large movie screens showing a young-earth history of the world, a technologically superior planetarium depicting creationist cosmologies and creationist interpretations of quantum physics, and a life-size model of Noah's Ark housing a conference center and hotel rooms. Dinosaurs believed by young-earth creationists to have existed in the Garden of Eden will be depicted.[46]

The expected cost of the building, interior designs, and exhibits is around US $25 million. As of 31 Oct 2006, $23.8 million has been raised in donations and the museum is expected to open in the summer of 2007.[47] Answers in Genesis' success in raising donations for the museum was contrasted with the failure of the American Museum of Natural History to find corporate sponsorship for their exhibit on the life of Charles Darwin, because, according to the Daily Telegraph, "American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution."[48]

[edit] Awards

National Religious Broadcasters awarded Answers in Genesis (Hebron, KY) their Best Ministry Website award in 2006.[49]

[edit] Criticism

No Answers in Genesis[3] is a website maintained by members of the Australian Skeptics and is maintained by retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting claims made by AiG. In June 2005, AiG-Australia[50] staff engaged in an online debate[4] with representatives from the Australian Skeptics in Margo Kingston's web diary section of the Sydney Morning Herald website.

AiG has compiled a list of "scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation" to show that it is possible for a modern working scientist to accept creationism.[51] They use the criteria that each member of the list must have a doctorate in a scientific field. In response to this, and similar lists, the (US) National Center for Science Education instigated Project Steve[5] (after Stephen Jay Gould) which is a tongue in cheek list of scientists who accept evolution, whose first name is Stephen (or some derivative, such as Steven, or Stephanie). The idea being that evolution is so well accepted by mainstream scientists that even a list of Steves will outnumber any creationist list. AiG's list currently has 154 signatories while as of July 21, 2006 there are 737 "Steves" on the NCSE list.

AiG asserts that Stalin's acceptance of Darwinian Evolution directly caused "oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder"[6], whereas in truth, Stalin actually rejected Darwinian Evolution in favour of the competing theory of Lamarckism.[7]

AiG, along with other creationist organisations, have also received criticism over what some people believe to be dishonest and misleading arguments including quote mining and misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.[8][9]

[edit] Controversy over interview with Richard Dawkins

In 1998, Answers in Genesis filmed an interview with Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Extracts from the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by Answers in Genesis. The interview, which can be viewed at an Answers in Genesis web page,[52] appears to show Dawkins nonplussed and pausing for 11 seconds when asked by the interviewer to "name one example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome". The video then shows Dawkins apparently giving a long, convoluted answer that fails to answer the question.

In an article by the Australian Skeptics,[53] it was alleged that the film was carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to adequately answer the question and that the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins reported to the Australian Skeptics that the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, it was claimed that the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.

Answers in Genesis has responded in an article: Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?[54] According to their account, the raw footage shows that Dawkins, who had previously been informed of the interviewer's creationist sympathies, after pausing for a long time asked the recording company that did the video to stop 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.

[edit] Definitions, probability and natural selection

Answers in Genesis' view is that Darwinian evolution is not a theory of how life began but rather a theory of the variability in life through natural processes. Answers in Genesis focuses contends that a naturalistic origin of life is virtually impossible, where life is defined as the first cell.

Answers in Genesis alleges that while the idea of spontaneous generation of complex life was all but abandoned after Louis Pasteur's work, abiogenesis remains one of the key conjectures of prebiotic evolution. They calculate the probability of a cell spontaneously coming into existence as less than 1 in 101057800[55] (referring to combinatorial analysis). They believe that this event is an outstandingly improbable event, which would appear to require a larger explanation than 'mere' chance. This is a view not shared by the majority of the scientific community, which widely accepts the scientific theory of evolution.[56]

Most scientists and other critics of creationism have pointed out that the mechanisms of evolution such as natural selection can occur prior to the first cell. Selection of self replicating macromolecules, such as RNA,[57][58] cumulate small probabilities and such creationist combinatorial analysis does not account for the true possibilities of life evolving to become a cell. Probability arguments that require the abiogenesis of a cell are criticized as artificially limiting the biological and prebiotic mechanisms in the development of life.

Answers in Genesis has written a number of articles about natural selection.[59] 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.[60] The mainstream scientific community holds that mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy do provide new information and that duplicate genes rapidly mutate, sometimes changing their function. Answers in Genesis still denies that such changes can provide usable information.[61]

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0521.asp
  2. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
  3. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0914search_engine.asp
  4. ^ http://www.creationontheweb.com/creation
  5. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/curl.asp?cid=14882
  6. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp
  7. ^ https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/feedback/2004/1126.asp
  8. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0610.asp
  9. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0610.asp
  10. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/editorial.asp
  11. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp
  12. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang
  13. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay
  14. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
  15. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp
  16. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
  17. ^ https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp
  18. ^ https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0720linking.asp
  19. ^ See these articles on Answersingenesis.org: Creation in public schools? and Honest science ‘left behind’ in US education bill
  20. ^ Kurt Wise. "Creation crisis in Christian colleges". Jan. 31, 2006
  21. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/reviews/beckwith.asp
  22. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative12feb2001.asp
  23. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/feedback/2005/0222.asp
  24. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/humanlife.asp
  25. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/stem_cells.asp
  26. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1101ankerberg_response.asp
  27. ^ Genesis 1:27
  28. ^ Genesis 2:24
  29. ^ Matthew 19:3-6
  30. ^ Mark 10:5-9
  31. ^ Romans 1:26-27
  32. ^ 1COR 6:9
  33. ^ Leviticus 20:13
  34. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp
  35. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/communism.asp
  36. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp
  37. ^ http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt192.htm
  38. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp
  39. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp
  40. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp
  41. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/donate/
  42. ^ http://www.wcpo.com/
  43. ^ a b http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/charitycheck.html
  44. ^ http://search.cincinnati.bbb.org/default3.asp?strTheForm=2&ID=1&strBCode=02920000&ComID=0292000005001292
  45. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810774805.html
  46. ^ http://answersingenesis.org/museum/docs2005/0523dinosaurs.asp
  47. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html
  48. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/20/wdarwin20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/20/ixportal.html
  49. ^ http://content.nrb.org/press/2006awards.htm
  50. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0615debate.asp
  51. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp
  52. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp
  53. ^ http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creationistdeceptionexposed.htm
  54. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp
  55. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp
  56. ^ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm
  57. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9110984&dopt=Abstract
  58. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/Quotes/cairns-smith_RNA.asp
  59. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp
  60. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box
  61. ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp

[edit] External links

[edit] Official

[edit] Similar organizations

[edit] Critical

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/s/Answers_in_Genesis_dfcc.html"