Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

ELs

I removed a group of 3 external links from that section. They are, for the most part, only indirectly related, critical of organizations like AiG, or of the positions AiG takes. For example, National Center for Science Education. The other two are No Answers in Genesis and Old Earth Ministries. OEM is a creationist who set up the website to advocate creationism vs. young earth creationism -- it's a self-published source. The former, NAiG, is obviously a parody -- or at least a direct response -- to AiG. There's a better case to include this one, given it's both (a) affiliated with Australian Skeptics and (b) received enough coverage in its own right. However, since we have a redirect and section about that site already (No Answers in Genesis), and because it's borderline for inclusion per WP:EL, I think it makes more sense to have under see also. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

NCSE is an important and significant site, and should be included. Their involvement in cases such as Kitzmiller v. Dover establishes them as a significant authority with a notable connection to AiG. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not an important and significant site, but it also has to be a resource to learn more about this organization (not a site broadly concerned with subjects which this organization advocates -- subjects which we cover in their own articles). In other words, it needs to be a resource about Answers in Genesis, not just creationism/evolution. Perhaps it is that and I've missed it, but it looks much too broad to link here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So Biased

I find most of the writings here so biased and written to discredit the AiG. This is a Wiki page that is supposed to describe what AiG is what it does; general facts about them. It may have a section for critics but it is full of critics in every section. Look how the writer describes creation museum:
AiG's Creation Museum is a controversial museum displaying a young Earth and has received much criticism from the scientific and religious communities.
This is clearly written in criticizing way which lead people to wrong conclusion. It needs to be written from neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.92.81 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "wrong conclusion"? I believe not informing readers that Young Earth Creationism has no basis in fact would be the "wrong conclusion." Ultra Venia (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that this article is remarkably fair to AiG, especially in comparison to certain other articles. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, for a "scientific" group (no basis in science for any of their claims) it's been fairly nice to them. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom and other users, don't violate WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION when posting on a talk page. If you want to criticize AiG and young Earth creationism, there are plenty of low level blogs you can find for that. Lets keep talk pages for article improvement rather than for letting your anti-YEC opinions be known. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1990'sguy, I am reflecting the scientific majority opinion. That is what Wikipedia's opinion is, and remember, WP:UNDUE can happen, and will, in an article about a group that displays a very small minority opinion. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Anti-YEC" is a mischaracterisation. YEC is a minority belief among Christians and is entirely inconsistent with all relevant scientific knowledge. Wikipedia is an unashamedly reality-based project, there is no way we will ever represent YEC as anything other than incorrect. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wording of the lead

I originally added this to the above section, but maybe it's better to give it a new one. Rather than dive into the ongoing argument over the wording of the lead, I'll propose another version altogether for your consideration. The lead is currently this:

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit, fundamentalist, Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism (YEC), rejecting the scientific consensus on common descent and on the age of the Earth as well as many other scientific facts. It also advocates a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and claims a presuppositional apologetics understanding of natural phenomena reveals its interpretation of Genesis to be scientifically accurate.[2] The organization has offices in the United Kingdom and the United States. It had offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, but in 2006 these seceded to form Creation Ministries International (CMI). AiG is currently building the Ark Encounter, which is scheduled to open on July 7, 2016.[3]

Here's my proposed version. I imagine it may still be controversial, but perhaps less so than the one this section was opened to discuss. I've reduced some of the "views" content and added a little bit of additional information to summarize the organization's history (currently almost entirely absent from the lead). There's certainly room for improvement. Omitting refs/wikimarkup for now:

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit, fundamentalist Christian apologetics ministry. It advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on young Earth creationism, and rejects scientific knowledge which does not conform to the Genesis creation narrative. The organization began as the Creation Science Foundation in 1980, following the merger of two Australian creationist groups. Its name changed to Answers in Genesis in 1994, when Ken Ham founded the organization's United States branch. In 2006 the branches in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa split from the US and UK to form Creation Ministries International. AiG publishes websites, magazines, and journals, operates a museum of creationism, and is set to open a theme park in July 2016.

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, though the words "scientific knowledge" feel a little awkward to me. I would just say, "rejects facts which do not conform to a literal reading of the Bible" (as this broader claim is closer to the truth since they use more than just Genesis, in spite of their name, and some of the facts they reject are historical rather than strictly scientific). jps (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Headed to bed, but just two quick comments. First, I think broadening it to talk about the Bible rather than just Genesis makes sense. Second, "Rejecting scientific knowledge" might not be ideal, but it was a conscious third option (apart from either "denying facts" or "rejecting scientific consensus"). On one hand, "consensus" can be interpreted as "majority" and leaves room for things like "scientific opinion". On the other hand, the words "deny" and "fact" may be literally accurate, but in this context the words read, to me, like they're emphasizing a point more than clarifying a position. Subtle, I guess, and I'm certainly not saying the way I've worded it is the best way, but I do prefer it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the term "any scientific facts" or "any results of scientific investigation" is closer to the correct description of the collection of things that AiG disagrees with. "Scientific knowledge" is anything that is discovered through the actions of science and it might be read by some that AiG rejects the process of science rather than the results of scientific investigation (which is a common misconception about creationists, actually). Let me try it out and see what you think: — Preceding unsigned comment added by jps (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 June 2016

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit, fundamentalist Christian apologetics ministry. It advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on young Earth creationism, and rejects any results of scientific investigation which do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. The organization began as the Creation Science Foundation in 1980, following the merger of two Australian creationist groups. Its name changed to Answers in Genesis in 1994, when Ken Ham founded the organization's United States branch. In 2006 the branches in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa split from the US and UK to form Creation Ministries International. AiG publishes websites, magazines, and journals, operates a museum of creationism, and is set to open a theme park in July 2016.

Looks good to me. Regarding the addition suggested below, the version I proposed in this section was really intended as a baseline summary -- it could certainly be added to depending on what the article looks like sans OR/undue content. So I don't have a strong opinion [at the moment] about whether/how to add more about controversy/criticism in that respect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and implemented the revised wording above, absent broad objections. Details can, of course, be sorted out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest including a paragraph addressing the controversies and the criticism. These are notable sections and should be summarised in the lead, per WP:Lead. If you could take a stab at that, that would be great! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

They say this "scientific knowledge" (though they wouldn't use the phrase) "does not conform to the Genesis creation narrative" but lots of others would disagree, depending on interpretations of Genesis. StAnselm (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but obviously we are talking about them in the article about them. jps (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So, what about "does not conform to their literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence

This sentence is WP:SEAOFBLUE. Are there any suggestions on how this can be resolved?

• Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit fundamentalist Christian apologetics ministry.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved the link for "non-profit". We could do the same thing for one or two of the other links. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

How about: Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit ministry with Christian fundamentalist and apologetics views.

Option 2: Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit ministry with Christian fundamentalist and Christian apologetics views.

The 2nd option avoids piping (pet peeve) ;-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to option 2, but "...and Christian apologetics views" is not the best wording. Christian apologetics is not an ideology or set of beliefs, but rather the defense of Christianity. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

How about: Option 3: Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit ministry promoting Christian fundamentalism and Christian apologetics. Then readers can decide whether they want to find out more by clicking on the links. PS: Are there "for-profit ministries"? (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but I would use the wording: "...ministry that promotes Christian....". Other than that, I have no objections to it. There are no "for-profit ministries" that I'm aware of. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"...ministry that promotes Christian...." is a good option. On the 2nd point, the "non-profit" part of the sentence can be removed then, right? The "ministry" assumes that the organisation is not-for-profit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I would expect for that to be the case, so yes. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will make the adjustment. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with this. Ministry is an activity, not necessarily a type of organization, and it's not safe to presume that anything that calls itself "a ministry" is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, which AiG is. I also don't think it makes sense to say it "promotes ... apologetics". It practices/engages in apologetics, and/or it's an apologetics ministry/organization. Yes, technically it promotes apologetics in the way it encourages people to make these arguments for themselves, but that doesn't seem like the best way to describe it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to tweak further. I was mostly concerned that the readers would drown in the wp:seaofblue. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored the original wording above, but unlinked the word "Christian" in an attempt to address WP:SEAOFBLUE (i.e. fundamentalist and apologetics are linked as they were). If I'm being honest, though, I prefer it all linked, but I realize I'm in the minority in not caring about WP:SEAOFBLUE :) Just as long as we're not sacrificing clarity/accuracy in the name of link management... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Does "ministry" need to be linked? Is AiG indeed a ministry or not? Should we just say "organisation"? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the obsessive use of nonprofit in articles on organisations promoting bullshit, whether religious or pseudomedical. Their purpose is religious, not charitable. They are no more nonprofit than the cult of Scientology, in the end. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If we had the words "promotes" in the lead sentence, then clearly the main thing they promote is young earth creationism, not fundamentalism or apologetics per se. I don't think the wording(s) proposed above are an improvement. StAnselm (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If AiG is not a ministry, it it a cult then? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ministry and cult are not mutually exclusive. Same with ministry and non-profit (nor does one fully enclose the other). If there's a minister, there's a ministry, and if there's a person/organization who routinely performs [typically protestant] religious practice (preaching, ceremonies, etc.) then you could theoretically call it a ministry. As I type this, I wonder if the term actually clarifies anything for the reader. I presume it was included in the first place because AiG calls itself a ministry. Maybe it's better for the body? Regarding use of "non-profit", I apologize on behalf of America for having laws that somehow grant tax exemption to an organization like this (rather than taxing double), but it is nonetheless a 501(c)(3). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

AiG is not a cult, as it is theologically orthodox. I don't mind using the word "ministry", but it seems that the word "organization" would be better. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't calling it a cult, just commenting on the term (which was brought up with a smiley face, so I don't think anybody actually thinks it should be called a cult in the article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be clear, claims like "it is theologically orthodox" have no place whatsoever on this Talk page, much less stated in such a blanket way. In some theological traditions they are extremely unorthodox. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC) If "theologically orthodox" has no place here, it still has much more of a place than the many low-level insults of AiG I have seen here, which have been tolerated (interesting that comment is called out but other violations of WP:NOTOPINION are not). I have no reason to believe it is anything other than orthodox. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC) It may be "theologically orthodox" from some perspectives, it is not from others. This is not a place for you to be making claims about its theological correctness, so don't do it - it has no place here. Outside of that it represents a FRINGE perspective on a scientific issue and you have to be ready for it to be treated accordingly. I am not going to respond on this further Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC) I find it interesting that you call me out (angrily, it seems) for a simple statement that AiG is theologically orthodox (I seriously have no reason to believe it isn't), but you never called out anyone else for their rude, snide, and low-level comments about AiG and YEC that are rampant here. BTW, I never advocated for calling AiG "theologically orthodox" on the actual article. It was just a comment that it was orthodox (as opposed to a "cult", which I'm sure many people who loath AiG call it - mainly just because of their dislike of the organization and all it does). I know you said you will not respond further here (and I really hope you don't), but you seem to have gotten very angry at my comment, while you ignore extremely hostile, snide, and low-level comments against AiG and YEC that don't belong on a talk page. We should act professionally here, and this behavior is not the right way to do this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Yes, I agree. Jytdog was way out of line there. StAnselm (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In this source, the org is described as: "The young earth creationism organization Answers in Genesis ..." I find this more straightforward vs using "Christian apologetics", "fundamentalism", "ministry", etc. Could this be the lead sentence? With link to "young earth creationism"? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to that discription (it is more straightforward), however we should note that AiG doesn't talk exclusively about YEC (they have written articles defending the divinity of Christ, for example). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

BBB

Is this para needed in the article?

• Due to a "miscommunication, understanding regarding document submittals back in August of 2002," according to then-CFO Bill Wise, Answers in Genesis-USA did not meet all of the Better Business Bureau's accountability standards for 2003. Answers in Genesis-USA has now been listed as meeting each of the Better Business Bureau's 20 standards for charitable accountability.

References

The first sentence is discussing dated information (2002), while the the second one is citing to BBB, which sounds like OR. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No, not needed. I presume someone added something critical after the "miscommunication", then someone else updated it when it was fixed. Seems like a non-story. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

okay, i will remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Biologos and Reasons to Believe

This paragraph is cited to these two creationist organisations, so it sounds like OR to me to be citing them for their views. Is this passage needed in the article?

• Astronomer Hugh Ross's organization Reasons To Believe, a progressive creationist organization, is a critic of Answers in Genesis. The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes the compatibility of science and religion, as well as evolutionary creationism, has stated that the views of Answers in Genesis have "force[d] many thoughtful Christians to lose their faith," while The Biologos Foundation "protect[s the Christian] faith."

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that they have received criticism from other (i.e. old earth) creationist groups is probably significant. StAnselm (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct, but this should be noted by 3rd party sources, rather than another creationist group. That's why it looks like OR to me. My preference would be to have this para taken out. It may not be notable what creationist groups criticize each other for. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Abiogenesis

This appears to be OR or coat rack, or both:

• In science, 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. Answers in Genesis includes in its critique of evolution the claim that a naturalistic origin of life is virtually impossible, where life is defined as the first cell. They refer to the idea of spontaneous generation of cells being all but abandoned after Louis Pasteur's work, and conflate it with abiogenesis. They calculate the probability of a cell spontaneously coming into existence as less than 1 in 10^1057800 similar to estimates of some other creationists, such as Michael Denton, and believe this requires a better explanation than what they call "mere chance." As is common, they cite a calculation by astrophysicist Fred Hoyle. They assert these calculations and claims are based on a number of errors, calculating on the basis of "mere chance" which is not part of the relevant theory, misunderstanding what probability calculations mean, underestimating the possibilities and inevitably failing to produce a meaningful calculation.

References

Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source anyway, and so should be removed. Also, there is no secondary source indicating that its comments are notable. StAnselm (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: My point in highlighting this passage was that it appeared to be some sort of coat rack. Why include the statement: "In science, abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis from evolutionary theory..." at all? This is an article about AiG, not about abiogenesis or other scientific concepts. Adding this creates a certain "respectability aura" which this group appears to lack. I don't think the article needs this passage at all. I updated the section heading accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm just curious, but what makes you think these are creationist sources? The talk.origins sources both promote evolution, and Denton is merely anti-evolutionist, not a creationist. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with TalkOrigins—I edited accordingly. OR or coat rack still applies, similar to below. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed this passage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nylon digestion: OR?

There's an aside under the "Beliefs" section about microbes having been observed evolving the capability to digest nylon. While this is fascinating in its own right, is this the right article? The sources are typical journal fare, meaning they probably don't care what AiG thinks about it. I think it's OR with the current sources. Opposes? Geogene (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree; scientific community does not seem to care what AiG believes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I pulled that. I understand the intent of that content, and think that some kind of link to an "evidences for evolution" article would do the same job without the editorializing. Geogene (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

WP policy on acceptable sources

According to the following WP policy, it is acceptable to use AIG sources for information about AIG.

Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “ “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published by experts in the field.”

Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”

This article is about the single minor viewpoint of AIG so the concern of due or undue weight is a mute point. A list of persons who may present a threat to scientific truth derived from AIG web pages is allowable and perhaps necessary. --OtisDixon (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

first, i think you mean "moot".  :) Secondly, advocacy one way or the other is not a good reason for anything in WP. There is a valid question of WP:UNDUE here. I have reverted your edit. You should not have restored it per [[WP:BRD] but should gather consensus before restoring it. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Staff

It was actually myself who took out the original staff listing, as it was extensive and looked like CVs reposted from the web site. The version recently added is neutral, and I support its inclusion (with caveat below):

• AiG employs a staff of Christian evangelicals who, besides Ken Ham, keep full lecture calendars including Bob Gillespie, Brian Catalucci, Jim Gardner, Buddy Davis, Steve Ham, Bodie Hodge, Bryan Osborne, Joe Owen, and Simon Turpin. Others have doctorates including Danny R. Faulkner. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, David Menton, Tommy Mitchell, Terry Mortenson, Georgia Purdom, and Andrew A. Snelling.

References

I would suggest consolidating citations to just a few; each name does not need to be cited -- looks like wp:overcite.

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't something we normally do. I'm happy for staff with their own articles to be included, but that's about all. Unless the top honcho didn't have an article in that case I'd include that person. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense for the staff to stay out then. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that there is more to AIG than just Ham. There are many who are working with and just as hard as Ham and it would be useful to expose who they are. The Creation museum has been successful for eight years now. They expect nearly 2 million people to visit Ark Encounter the first year and that the visits to Creation museum will double this year because of the Ark Encounter. (all previous attendance studies have proven valid). So AIG is not fading away. It is getting more and more prominent. It seems that recent editing has resulted in trying to minimize AIG and it's impact. Such minimizing can backfire as readers react to it. For example, some atheist groups are planning to protest the opening of Ark Encounter and AIG has heard that some people are planning to attend in protest of the protesters.

The staff members are unlikely to have their own web presence because they work for AIG, so AIG is probably the primary source for information on these people. And WP allows for such use of minor organization sources. --OtisDixon (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Weller and K.e. coffman (which has been rare lately!) This is not about whether the AiG web site can be used as a source for the information; it can. Any of these folks notable enough to have their own articles could be re-added, but so far, none of them do. If you want to show that AiG is more than just Ham, there is probably a source somewhere saying how many people AiG employs or something; no need to list them. Additionally, you have stated that your intention is to "expose who they are" and make sure readers don't under-react to AiG. Neither of these are valid reasons for making changes to a Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia's purpose is not to warn anybody about anything. That goes to the very heart of WP:NPOV. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Type parameter in the infobox

1990'sguy changed the "type" parameter in the infobox from "Fundamentalist Christian apologetics ministry" to "Christian apologetics organization". I reinstated the "fundamentalist" but wanted to bring it up here. It seems to me that it's an important distinction given so many Christians actively reject positions put forward by AiG (i.e. it's pretty specifically a fundamentalist perspective). It's also the way we describe it in the lead per the discussion above. That said, brevity is better in the infobox. Maybe there's a better way? Might even be able to omit that parameter altogether given we have "non-profit" and the purpose parameter filled out. Not sure what the best way is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I will note that "Fundamentalist" was added only three days ago, and for the first time ever, I think. Another thing is that there are some other "subcategories" of Christianity that also fit AiG. I agree that "fundamentalist" is probably more relevant for this article, but how do we choose which to include and which to leave out? I guess that either way is OK, but these are just some things to think about, in the least.

I know that this probably will not make any difference either way, but I will add as an aside that the edit summary for the edit that I posted above seems to infer that fundamentalist Christianity is an organized denomination, while in reality, the term designates the theological positions of its adherents, regardless of their denomination. There are fundamentalists in nearly every formidable denomination. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It has been over a month and nobody's commented here. I'm inclined to remove "fundamentalist" from the infobox (and only that). One could easily include "evangelical" or "parachurch" to describe AiG as well, so I don't see why only "fundamentalist" is included. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

[www.omicsonline.org/open-access/christian-fundamentalism-and-science-answers-in-genesis-2332-0915-1000132.php?aid=36367 In this paper we focus on one Christian fundamentalist movement- Answers in Genesis (AiG), their views on evolution and their understanding of science through examination of their websites.] Other articles may be found describing AiG as fundamentalist. If you wish to include "evangelical" or "parachurch" as well, I will not object. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Museum?

Regarding this revert, the RfC: "Museum & Biblical" referenced is three year old. Perhaps a new consensus is needed?

Separately, the RfC was only about the lead sentence, not the rest of the article: "this RfC is closed with the consensus to describe the Creation Museum as "Biblical" and "museum" in the lead sentence. There is no consensus as to whether "elegant variation" should be used outside the lead." (Emphasis mine.)

Pls also see: Creation_Museum#Status_as_a_museum.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What is clear is that: (a) the Creation Museum is a museum; and (b) that is the current consensus. Even though the RfC was much more specific, the "fact" that it is a museum should apply to all articles, until that consensus changes. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That is not how I read the close, which I cited above. If I may quote Tryptofish: "Bottom line: proper, NPOV, encyclopedic style should utilize a variety of terminology to capture what the reliable sources say: "museum", "unaccredited museum", "tourist attraction", and so forth. Multiple editors in this discussion have now agreed that this approach is reasonable." I agree with this approach and believe that a variety can and should be used. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

What the close means was that your edit was revertable - "not a museum" is not a valid reason for removing. Interestingly, the discussion on accreditation was never closed. I would object strongly to "unaccredited museum" - accreditation of museums is not at all like accreditation of universities. Personally, I'm happy with stylistic variation - it is also a tourist attraction, of course. StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe this edit should be acceptable then. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just seems like better writing to include an alternative formulation to avoid "X Museum is a museum". If it were called "Creation Tourist Attraction" and reliable sources also called it a museum, then I'd be in favor of calling it a museum in the same sentence. This version calls it a museum in the very next sentence, so this doesn't seem like it would be terribly controversial? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm.

• Museum of Bad Art: "The Museum of Bad Art (MOBA) is a privately owned museum..."
• Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum: "The Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum of Steam Power and Land Drainage is a small industrial heritage museum..."
• Croatian Natural History Museum: "The Croatian Natural History Museum is the oldest and biggest natural history museum..."
• Garbage Museum: "The Garbage Museum was a waste-management themed museum..."
• Hallie Ford Museum of Art: "The Hallie Ford Museum of Art (HFMA) is the museum of Willamette University"
• Indianapolis Museum of Art: "The Indianapolis Museum of Art (known colloquially as the IMA) is an encyclopedic art museum..."
• John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum: "The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum is the presidential library and museum of John Fitzgerald Kennedy..."
• Museum de Oude Wolden: "Museum de Oude Wolden, abbreviated as MOW, is a regional museum in the village of Bellingwolde in the Netherlands."
• Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago: "The Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) Chicago is a contemporary art museum..."
• Museum of Socialist Art, Sofia: "The Museum of Socialist Art (Bulgarian: Музей на социалистическото изкуство, Muzey na sotsialisticheskoto izkustvo) in Sofia, is a museum of art..."
• SeaCity Museum: "The SeaCity Museum is a museum in Southampton, England..."

Doesn't appear to have been an issue in these recognized articles. This is not an exhaustive list, but this construct was used more often than not. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've rearranged to open with "museum" in 1st sentence: diff. Hope this works! K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tourist attraction is MUCH more accurate, how on earth does the "Creation Museum" fit with Wikipedia's definition of a museum as " a collection of artifacts and other objects of artistic, cultural, historical, or scientific importance" Clearly it doesn't! Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the people who quite literally wrote the book on the place disagree. In its review of Righting America at the Creation Museum, the LA Times writes: "The book focuses on a central dilemma: the Creation Museum is definitely a museum, but what kind of museum is it?" Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Words have meanings and they are not changed by a poor quality book review in the LA Times. Theroadislong (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The CM is clearly a museum. One could say that it is the YEC version of a natural history museum or a history museum. Also, the CM does have a collection of artifacts (they have at least one dinosaur skeleton). The arguments against calling the CM a museum strongly appear to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Many editors here clearly dislike YEC and can't stand having a museum that promotes their beliefs actually being referred to as a museum, even though reliable sources have no problem with doing so themselves. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of the review, it was published in a reliable source. And it is not the opinion of the reviewer that the museum is a museum. If I read it correctly, the reviewer is reporting the conclusion of the book's authors. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is as much a museum as creation science is science, namely: not at all. Real museums have all the things Theroadislong named above. This thing is a mockup, a cardboard facade, a Potemkin village, a surrogate. (Like creation science.) For people who only visit museums, as opposed to working in them, it may look like one because they never get to see the collections in the drawers in real museums.

Calling it a "tourist attraction" is definitely right, and nobody ever seems to have debated that. Calling it a "museum" is an insult to all the real museums out there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, more IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Reliable sources from even those who don't approve of the museum call it a museum. Just because it promotes YEC does not mean it's not a museum. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That is not an IDONTLIKEIT argument, it's an ITSNOTTRUE argument. Nobody who knows what a museum really is will call it a museum. And the "Just because it promotes YEC" is a lie: nobody here said that this is the reason why it is not a museum. You exactly conform to my past experience with creationists: they don't listen and they misrepresent what people say. No wonder they adopt dysfunctional worldviews.

Okay, so the "reliable sources" fell for the trick of calling a non-museum a museum, giving you legal justification for keeping the lie in the article. I don't know how to handle this at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You just stated that the reliable sources (why the scare quotes? Is the LA Times unreliable?) "fell for the trick of calling a non-museum a museum". So it seems like you're ignoring what reliable sources call the museum. That, plus the fact that you clearly dislike creationism, makes it strongly seem (at least) like an IDONTLIKEIT argument. As an aside, I advise you not to make incivil, personal attacks against others in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to bullshit me, I have discussed creationists for many years and I know your tricks. Yes, you are misrepresenting your opponents, as I explained above ("Just because it promotes YEC"). A real discussion cannot happen when one of the discussers invents bad reasoning and claims that his opponents use that bad reasoning when they actually used different, valid reasoning.

I use quotes because anything defined as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia can become unreliable when it leaves its area of expertise. Any newspaper contains mistakes because of sloppiness and ignorance, and obviously the real meaning of the word "museum" is something onyl a small minority is familiar with.

Also, an IDONTLIKEIT argument is not defined by whether the arguer doesn't like something but by whether the arguer uses his dislike as logical grounds for his reasoning. That's why it is called an "IDONTLIKEIT argument" and not an "argument by an IDONTLIKEIT person".

Your last sentence is another common creationist tactic: first use dishonest reasoning, then complain about "uncivility" when the fact is pointed out. If you don't want to be accused of dishonesty, the best solution is not to be dishonest. Failing that, you should retract when caught, not complain. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not BS-ing you. Other editors have already pointed out that the CM clearly meets the definition of a museum and that it is best to call the museum one on this article. I'll quickly admit that many sources that are considered reliable can contain large inaccuracies, but I don't see how this example is one of them. BTW, I would be very surprised if any of the writers of those articles looked favorably on the CM or AiG. But even though these points are true, you clearly reject this and still want other wording. It seems to me like an IDONTLIKEIT argument, but whatever, I'm not going to argue about this anymore. As for my note about personal attacks, it had nothing to do with any "creationist tactic". Your statement that creationists "don't listen and they misrepresent what people say. No wonder they adopt dysfunctional worldviews" would be considered a personal attack. Could you imagine someone saying that to/about any other group? Also, it's besides the point whether it's true or not. These should be avoided either way. I've seen enough of these as well as snide comments similar to this on talk pages like this. It would be beneficial to Wikipedia if these are avoided. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

After you actually used the dishonest tactics I described, it is not a personal attack to point out that you used them. Maybe I should not have pointed out that people pushing the same agenda as you do use those tactics all the time but, being a scientist, I cannot help noticing consistent patterns. What would be really beneficial to Wikipedia would be people like you avoiding the dishonest tactics that cause people to call them out on them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you read my comment above, you would know that what I was referring to when I mentioned personal attacks had nothing to do with you "pointing out" my "dishonest tactics", but rather your comment about that creationists at large "don't listen and they misrepresent what people say. No wonder they adopt dysfunctional worldviews." While I obviously think you're wrong about me using "dishonest tactics", your "pointing them out" was not what I was referring to. Just saying. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That ("don't listen and they misrepresent what people say") was exactly what I meant when I said "Maybe I should not have pointed out that people pushing the same agenda as you do use those tactics all the time". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that there is a consensus in place as a result of an RfC. I think it would take at least a new RfC to change this consensus.

I have a more basic concern that we are changing the meaning of the word "museum" to fit the creation museum. The dictionary definition [1] … "a building where objects of historical, scientific, or artistic interest are kept" it doesn't mention "pseudoscientific". Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

We aren't changing the definition of anything. You are asking to make a judgment call, independent of what the reliable sources say, about whether the Creation Museum meets the definition of a museum. That's original research, especially when there is already published scholarship on the subject, as noted above.

Also, I notice you've switched definitions of "museum". The Wikipedia definition you cited earlier included "cultural significance". The displays in the Creation Museum may hold no cultural significance to you, but they do hold cultural significance to a large number of Americans, who value the visual representation of biblical accounts, even apart from the larger YEC message the museum is trying to convey. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• I do have a problem with something calling itself a museum when it fails the first point of a museum, i.e. to educate its visitors as opposed to telling them fairy stories, but the reliable sources are there. I'd be more concerned if we started calling that Noah's Ark thing a museum, because it clearly isn't. Laura Jamieson (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nor does it claim to be, as far as I know, although in fairness, I have seen it characterized that way in some third-party sources. But let's not pick a fight that doesn't appear to be there on either side if we don't have to. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

List of personnel

Since Answers in Genesis is the greatest threat against evolution that creationists have, then these staff members of Answers in Genesis are notable as part of that threat.

Answers in Genesis employs Dr. Danny R. Faulkner, astronomer; Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, research biologist; Dr. David Menton, biologist, anatomist; Dr. Tommy Mitchell, medical doctor; Dr. Terry Mortenson, historian of geology, theologian; Dr. Georgia Purdom, molecular geneticist, Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, geologist, editor-in-chief of Answers Research Journal.

References

--OtisDixon (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been discussed and the consensus was to leave the names out, unless these people are notable individually, as would have been evidenced by having a Wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, who says that Answers in Genesis is "the greatest threat against evolution that creationists have"? That is a pretty weird superlative, like "the world's most potent eunuch". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We could maybe mention that AiG employs Andrew A. Snelling. One claim to fame he has was a recent dispute and lawsuit with the U.S. National Park Service. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Since he has an article, I think that Andrew can be mentioned. —PaleoNeonate - 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• mentioning snelling does not mean adding UNDUE and not to mention WP:RELTIME-violating content like this. A mention is a mention. Do not claim offtopic stuff about a lawsuit is a "mention". Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

this is a "mention", and is fine. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether mentioning the lawsuit violates WP guidelines, Snelling is a notable figure. Numerous reliable sources have covered him (along with many more major media sites that WP does not consider reliable). He has his own article, so there is no reason not to mention him here.

However, it is also true that the lawsuit brought him a lot of coverage. We should mention this. Of course, we shouldn't violate WP:RELTIME in the process, but this was a big event. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't questioned whether we should delete his article. Unclear why you are bringing that up. The lawsuit is discussed (not very neutrally, but discussed) in the article about him. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see at all how it is not discussed neutrally, but regardless, it was a very notable event in Snelling's life, and it tied directly to his work at AiG and creationism. Entirely appropriate to mention here. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the quotes which were not neutral, diff. The article about him also no where says he believes the grand canyon was created after noah's flood in YEC chronology and that this is incorrect, but i guess we can duck that bullet there; i don't care that much about it. But If you want to bring in the lawsuit stuff here then we need to address the YEC aspect and refute it and that is all getting bulky and UNDUE. He works there. That is enough for this article. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to refute anything. The lawsuit was filed due to alleged discrimination because he was a creationist. The lawsuit was dropped because the government relented and issued him a permit. Are you saying we refute that he was a victim of discrimination? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I agreed with a mention of his name, this is other material that probably requires another consensus for inclusion. I'm also skeptical about that he was previously refused "because of his Creationist beliefs" although we know that the argument was used as leverage to obtain permission. I've not yet looked for a reliable source also contesting this, but this whole issue probably best belongs at the person's article. —PaleoNeonate - 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: This has (or should have) nothing to do with whether he actually was refused because of his creationist beliefs (although the three reviewers made it pretty clear they opposed him because he was doing creationist work). I'm saying that, regardless of whether he was actually discriminated against, this was a notable lawsuit. It received a lot of coverage, and it is probably Snelling's biggest "claim to fame". The articles cited on Snelling's article are only a part of those that exist on this topic. And this lawsuit is very closely related to his work at AiG. He is AiG's director or research, and he wanted to do research with GC rocks. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

He was refused because the Grand Canyon is a precious natural resource, and they don't let just anybody take stuff from there. Doing pseudoscience (and before you react to that, keep in mind that there are DS on pseudoscience) is not a legitimate scientific reason to do research. As all the refs make clear, due to the change in US administrations, the department allowed this to go forward. Politics is not science, and please do not confuse them or try to add content to WP trying to depict the acceptance of the application to take rocks as having anything to do with science. I will add the bit about the application being granted due to Trump administration policies to the Snelling article. That will take care of that issue over there. Again, going into all this here is UNDUE. If we do decide to cover it all here in a policy-compliant way, then we should delete that article and redirect it here. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again, what really motivated the rejection of the application is beside the point (and it seems like you are offering two different explanations for the motivation). And this has nothing to do with confusing politics and science, or whether Snelling's work is not legitimate. How am I doing any of these things, anyway? The point is that the lawsuit was notable. Period. And it ties into Snelling's work as a creationist and with AiG, so we are not violating COATRACK. And it is not UNDUE because I only added a very brief summary. The info in Snelling's article about the lawsuit is much longer and more detailed by comparison. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now fixed the Snelling article so it complies with WP:PSCI. We can copy that here but then we should probably delete the Snelling article. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I do not want to copy everything over here. All I want is a very short summary noting what is probably the most notable thing about Snelling, something which directly ties into his work at AiG. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It isn't possible to briefly mention it; we cannot ignore PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand how PSCI prevents us from giving a short summary of it? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If you mean this content that said "Creationist geologist Andrew A. Snelling, who received international media coverage for his involvment in a lawsuit alleging discrimination for his creationist beliefs against the Grand Canyon National Park authorities and the U.S. Interior Department" - this is not encyclopedic content. It teaches nobody anything and is really just PROMO. it is information that he started working there in 2007 as their research person. It would be information to tell the story of the lawsuit. The proposed content trumpeting the "press" about the lawsuit - no. This is just PROMO for AiG and it is becoming more and more apparent the more I dig into what the refs actually say, that the only purpose of the lawsuit was publicity. I have been developing the content at the Snelling article, and here is how it stands now. the section really should be called "Publicity stunt". See also remarks at the Snelling Talk page, here. Jytdog (talk)

I would strongly dispute your claim that this is just a publicity stunt. There was a lot of substance behind the lawsuit (and the government gave in to Snelling's demands, which indicates this was not a baseless lawsuit just for show). But moving beyond the fluff about "publicity stunts", your point about how "it teaches nobody anything" makes some sense (unfortunately, it was just one line). I can see how one might have more questions if they read it a line like that. Maybe someone could word it better so we can add a line like that. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no independent source that the government gave into any demands. Not one. The suit was filed and dropped, and the only people who said anything about it, were AiG/Snelling/Snelling's lawyers and what you find in reliable sources is reporting of what those people said. See discussion at the Snelling talk page about what was actually under dispute when the lawsuit was filed, and what we know about the outcome of that specific remaining dispute. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen an RS that questioned whether this lawsuit was legitimate. Can you show me one? We will go by what the RSs say. We are not going to make allegations like this unless RSs do. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I consider this reliable, but it says: The Grand Canyon National Park issued this statement to me tonight: Grand Canyon National Park this week issued an administrative launch permit to Dr. Andrew Snelling for the purpose of collecting geologic samples under an existing permit to do research in the park.

The launch permit is for his Aug. 6-13 river trip and was granted to facilitate resolution of a legal dispute between Dr. Snelling and the National Park Service (NPS).

Issuance of the administrative launch permit neither implies an admission of fault by the NPS nor does it set a precedent for future issuance of administrative launch permits..

This is a bit in the weeds over "collecting permits" and "administrative launch permits", but it sounds like whatever new collecting Snelling wanted to do under the 2013 and 2016 applications was not granted, but the permit to "launch" (which they had already said they were willing to give in the May 5 letter) was granted. Sounds like Snelling caved, not the park service. But hey lots of PR. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The link you shared was written by Hemant Mehta. This is an atheist activist blogger who blatantly abhors AiG and bashes them in a lot of his blog posts. He will not say anything even remotely positive about anything related to it or YEC. He is not a reliable source. Of course, when someone strongly dislikes certain organizations, such as AiG, they will frequently excuse things like this as "PR". We need a much better source in order to seriously consider whether this lawsuit was a sham. You can have the last word if you wish, but this whole discussion here is a waste of time for me. I have other things to do than continue here. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Am aware of all that. The question is whether it would be reliable for passing on what the NPS said. I have looked all over, and this is the only (the only) statement by the NPS that I have seen. I am not proposing to use it at this time, but wanted to note what this source says the NPS said. If anybody has another source giving NPS's perspective it would be useful to see that. (I urge folks to look - it is remarkably lacking) Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, we cannot use the NPS as a source, because the NPS also does not like AiG. No honest and knowledgeable person or organization likes AiG, and disqualifying a source on this basis is disingenious.

Anyway, nobody wanted to use Mehta - because he is just some blogger. That is a good reason. (Of course he is still way more reliable than AiG.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)