Talk:No Answers in Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the June 2005 deletion debate on this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No Answers in Genesis.

Here are the AiG folks I could find in 10 minutes and their disciplines.

[edit] AiG folks

  • Disciplines not related to evolution:
    • Adrian Bates - Law
    • Richard Fangrad - Electronics
    • Dr. Monty White - Chemistry
    • Dr. Carl Wieland - Medicine
    • Dr. Jonathan Sarfati - Physical Chemistry and Spectroscopy
  • Disciplines somehow related to evolution but could easily get their titles without understanding evolution:
    • Ken Ham - Applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology)
    • Dr. Johan Kruger - animal reproductive physiology
    • Dr. Don Batten - Plant physiology

"Most of AiG's articles are by scientists with Ph.D.s (though some of these are in disciplines not related to the subject of evolution)" would be extremely misleading. So I changed it. --Hob Gadling 17:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I understand but I would sugest Chemistry has relation to Evolution(at least by Aig's definition), and you can't discredit Dr. Johan o rDr. Don Batten just because it is "possible" that they could of learned about evolution elsewhere. Why not just add that their views are not held by mainstream scientists. Falphin 02:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    Given that the sentence in question is: Critics have also noted the lack of scientific qualifications of Stear and many of the other contributors, while most of AiG's articles are by scientists with Ph.D.s, this excuse is inconsistent. So, NAiG contributors are ignorant because of their lack of credentials, and AiG contributors are knowledgeable even if their PhDs are in other disciplines because they "could have learned it elsewhere"? --Hob Gadling 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I see your point. But AIG have scientists in related fields. The actually AIG arguement is that they don't rely on their credentials but their arguements. They only criticized them I believe because they called AIG unqualified or something. Falphin 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone claimed:

POV that PhDs are not related to evolution. It is a fact that some AiG scientists have PhDs in geology and biology

If that is a fact, then can you please name the geologists? Some people... I'll remove the geology insertion until then. --Hob Gadling 10:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Various degrees. PhD in Physical Chem [1], we've already gone into Biology(their are also some in Biochem, which is of course related), Physics [2], Operations research(more involved in computers not so much related) [3], astrophysicist [4], molecular genetics [5], several degress including geology [6]. I can add more later but I think a broader term might be better than just Biology. Falphin 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • For two more specific in Biology I would add Dr. Emil Silvestru(PhD. in Geology) and Dr Tas Walker(Bachelors in Geology),
      OK, the geology part can come back. --Hob Gadling 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I thought the evolutionist position was that ALL science is dependant on an evolutionary understanding to even function. To claim that elsewhere and then make any claim that a creationist's field of discipline is not related to evolution or does not require an understanding of evolution is intellectually dishonest (or just plain foolish - to be blunt).LowKey (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Widely cited"

This section has some major problems. First of all, the first sentence:

The site is quoted by such websites as the talk.origins archive as well as by broadcasting organisations such as BBC News,[1] the Geological Society of America[2] and the Australian Skeptics.

Not only are citations needed for the bits about talk.origins and Australian Skeptics, but to say that the BBC News and the GSA have quoted NAiG based upon the references is completely false. To even say that NAiG is cited on the BBC page is tenuous at best as the page simply links to the NAiG website. Are bare links really considered citations?

Then the second sentence:

It was also recommended as a resource for the National Conference on the Teaching of Evolution (NCTE)

That's not really true, either. In fact, it's blatantly false as we find this disclaimer at the bottom of the reference page:

Inclusion within this matrix should not be considered a recommendation by either the UC Museum of Paleontology or the Steering Committee, as no systematic evaluation criteria have been applied.

67.135.49.147 05:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment. Edit as you feel necessary about this.--ZayZayEM 05:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just deleted the whole lot. It really doesn't seem notable information. It sounds a lot like trying to puff the website up as much as possible by using a very teneous liberal interpretation of "cited by".--ZayZayEM 06:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)