Answers in Genesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on Young Earth creationism and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.[1] 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 split off to form Creation Ministries International. AiG employs a staff of Christian evangelicals, including three who have doctorates from secular universities in two sciences, biology[2][3] and astrophysics.[4]
Contents |
[edit] History
Answers in Genesis resulted from the merger of two Australian creationist organizations in 1980. One was founded in the late 1970s by John Mackay, Ken Ham, and others as Creation Science Educational Media Services who believed that the established Christian church's teaching of the Bible was being compromised. The group merged with Carl Wieland's Creation Science Association in 1980 becoming the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) that subsequently became Answers in Genesis.
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 so that all the sister organizations would share the same "identity".
The website of WCPO-TV has reported that in 2003, Answers in Genesis-US "did not meet all of the Better Business Bureau's accountability standards" (emphasis in original).[5] 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."[5] Answers in Genesis-US is now listed as meeting each of the Better Business Bureau's 19 standards for charitable accountability with no complaints in the last 36 months.[6]
In September 2004, its website, which is available in English and a number of other languages, had 35,000–47,000 visits per day.[7]
Following "turmoil" in 2005[8], by February 2006 Answers in Genesis-USA and the UK office "withdrew" from the AiG "family", retaining the brand name and the website. The Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and South African branches rebranded themselves as Creation Ministries International (CMI). After some of AiG's comments in late 2006, Answers in Genesis became involved in a legal dispute with CMI. CMI has accused AiG-USA of damaging and publicly defaming their ministry. In 2007, CMI filed suit against AiG-USA alleging a variety of wrongdoings.[9]
CMI opened offices in the UK and US during 2006, initially as a distribution point for their periodicals, Creation magazine and the Journal of Creation[10] In June 2006 Answers in Genesis launched Answers.[11] as a replacement to CMI's Creation magazine.[12] AiG-US and AiG-UK no longer distribute Creation[13] or the Journal of Creation[14] in the United States or United Kingdom. Also in 2006, the National Religious Broadcasters awarded Answers in Genesis (Hebron, Kentucky) their Best Ministry Website award.[15]
In May 2007 AiG launched the Creation Musuem, which received criticism from groups like National Center for Science Education and petitions of protest from scientists.[16]
Financing and fundraising has been an important of the ministry. Its U. S. revenue in 2005 was $13.7M.[17] According to Charity Navigator, in FYE 2006, Answers in Genesis had $13,675,653 in total revenue and $12,257,713 in expenses.[18] In 2006, Answers in Genesis was also listed by Ministry Watch, an independent organization which reviews Christian ministries for transparency and financial accountability among other things, as one of their Shining Lights "top thirty" exemplary ministries.[19]
[edit] Views on science
Answers in Genesis rejects much of the scientific consensus regarding cosmology, geology, linguistics,[20] paleontology and evolutionary biology. Instead, a number of hypotheses (considered pseudoscience by the scientific community) are promoted to explain how the universe, the Earth and life could have originated within the last 10,000 years. Answers in Genesis claims to present scientific arguments in support of their primarily theological views of origins.[21] 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 ID's position on the inability to identify the designer[22]).
Answers in Genesis emphasizes a presuppositional rather than an evidentialist approach to apologetics.[23] 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.
[edit] Cosmological Views and the Distant Starlight Problem
Answers in Genesis believes that all stars and planetary bodies, including the Earth, were formed around 6,000 years ago.[24] They reject the scientific theories of cosmology.[25]
A young universe is challenged by the distant starlight problem, which presents the dilemma of how light from objects millions or billions of light years away could be observed 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[26] and tentatively prefers a model proposed by creationist physicist Russell Humphreys[27] called "White Hole Cosmology". Young Earth creationists who support Humphreys believe that the idea uses the theory of relativity to explain how billions of years could have passed in space while only a single day passed on Earth.
Humphreys envisions that on the first day of creation God placed all the mass of the universe within its Schwarzschild radius. According to Humphreys, God designed the universe to begin expanding, instantaneously transforming it into a "white hole", the reverse of a black hole. As the matter was expelled out of the white hole eventually the white hole vanished altogether. This creationist cosmology requires that the Milky Way lie near the center of the universe, a suggestion which AiG believes is supported by claims of quantized redshifts.[28] Humphreys contends that while the material components of the universe were being expelled from the white hole, the outside region containing stars would have aged billions of years while the earth (one of the last objects to leave the white hole) aged only a day or so due to time dilation, resolving the starlight problem. He discusses this idea in detail in his book Starlight and Time.
According to the creationist debunking website TalkOrigins Archive: "Humphreys... fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else), but that is far from the only problem with the model. In particular, Humphreys badly mangles the standard GR treatment for gravitational time dilation: in order for time to pass more rapidly far away from the Earth, we would need to be near a black hole, not a white hole. Humphreys tried to salvage his model by later claiming a time dilation within the white hole, but this was equally unworkable. It goes without saying that his model fails to explain a vast array of cosmological observations, e.g., the existence of the CMBR and its anisotropy, supernovae time dilation, the light element abundance and so forth."[29]
The idea of the Milky Way existing near the center of the universe is similar to modern geocentrism, but AiG has intentionally distanced themselves from claims that the planet Earth is the exact center of the universe.[30]
AiG believes that the creationists' distant starlight problem is similar to the historically significant "horizon problem" of the Big Bang theory.[31] While the general consensus of cosmologists is that the horizon problem is solved by inflationary theory as a model for the universe,[32] there is no creationist consensus on the solution to the distant starlight problem.
[edit] Origin of life and evolution
Answers in Genesis' is in agreement with scientific consensus that evolution and the origin of life are separate fields of study. Answers in Genesis proposes 'baraminology' to explain the origin of life based on the description in Genesis 1 to reproduce “after their kind”.[33] This view has found no support amongst the scientific community.[34]
Answers in Genesis believe that evolution by natural selection can only cause variability by reducing the genetic information or shifting existing information around. This is distinct from the evolutionary view that mutation followed by natural selection causes both increases and decreases in the amount of genetic information. Answers in Genesis has written a number of articles about natural selection.[35] They state that "...It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information.", citing an example of natural selection removing genes for short fur in cold climates.[36] The mainstream scientific community holds that mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy provide new information and that duplicate genes can mutate rapidly, which may change their function. Answers in Genesis denies that copying genes provides new, usable information, arguing that such duplicated genetic information is merely an additional copy of the original information.[37]
Novel information appearing in an organism's genome has been described by scientists, one example being a nylon-eating bacteria that evolved a new enzyme to digest nylon, a polymer that wasn't invented until 1935.[38][39] Scientists repeated these results in the laboratory when they forced a strain of Pseudomonas to evolve nylon-digesting enzymes by leaving them in an environment which contained no nutrients other than the man-made by-products of nylon.[40] AIG has responded to such evidence by stating that "there are good reasons to doubt the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes, quite aside from the extreme improbability of such coming about by chance", providing several points in support of this claim.[41]
Another focus for the Answers in Genesis' critique of evolution is that a naturalistic origin of life is virtually impossible, where life is defined as the first cell. They state that while the idea of spontaneous generation of cells 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,[42] similar to estimates of some other scientists, such as biochemist Michael Denton[43] and Sir Frederick Hoyle, and believe this requires a better explanation than 'mere' chance. Probability arguments that require the abiogenesis of a cell are criticized by scientists as artificially limiting the biological and prebiotic mechanisms in the development of life. They contend that the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, can occur prior to origin of the first cell. They state that selection of self-replicating macromolecules, such as RNA,[44][45] cumulate small probabilities and that creationist statistical analysis does not describe the true probability of complex chemicals evolving into a cell.
[edit] Morality and social issues
AiG believes evolutionary science "will inevitably lead to a magnification of the effects of sin," such as is the cause of social problems including abortion and racism.[46] The organization has accused Hollywood of using "subtle tactics" to slip in "evolutionary content".[47] Movies and television programs they have criticized for doing this include The Munsters, Lilo & Stitch, Bugs Bunny cartoons, Fantasia, and Finding Nemo.[48]
[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 idea of creation will only result in it being distorted by those who don't believe in it.[49] 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".[50] AiG 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.[51] They also want Christian colleges to expand the teaching of creationism.[52]
[edit] Life issues
Answers in Genesis takes a strong pro-life stance on abortion because they regard individual life as beginning at fertilization.[53] 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,[54] except to save the life of the mother.[55] They are also strongly opposed to euthanasia,[56] and embryonic stem cell research, but support somatic/adult stem cell research which does not require the destruction of fetuses.[57]
[edit] Homosexuality
Answers in Genesis considers marriage to consist of one man and one woman for life,[58] based on Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 which Jesus cited in Matthew 19:3-6 and Mark 10:5-9 . In claiming that homosexuality is a sin, Answers in Genesis has cited writings by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27 and 1COR 6:9 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. Answers in Genesis believes that the punishments described in the Old Testament, such as Leviticus 20:13, AiG "reject the implication that we are proposing any sort of ill-treatment of homosexuals, or rejection of the sinner, as opposed to the sin."[59]
[edit] Evolution and race
AiG states that belief in evolutionary theory contributed to eugenics and racial theories[60] which supported the policies of Nazi Germany[61] in its prosecution of the Holocaust,[62] as well as the evils of Soviet Communism[63] under Stalin. To support these views, Answers in Genesis quotes[64] the 1914 American textbook Hunter's Civic Biology[65] which states that "there exist upon the earth five races [...] the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America".
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.) are "completely contrary to the teachings of Christ".[66]
[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. 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."[67]
Amongst its various displays and exhibits, the museum includes life-size animatronic (animated and motion-sensitive) dinosaurs, large movie screens showing a young-earth history of the world, and a planetarium depicting creationist cosmologies and creationist interpretations of quantum physics. Model dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden are also depicted, as well as dioramas depicting humans and dinosaurs co-existing peacefully[68]
The Museum opened May 27th, 2007 at a cost of 27 million dollars raised entirely by private donations. The museum displays were created by Patrick Marsh, known for work on Universal Studios attractions for King Kong and Jaws.[69]
The Museum was widely criticized by scientists and science organizations.[70]
[edit] Criticism
[edit] Mainstream critics
No Answers in Genesis[71] is a website maintained by members of the Australian Skeptics and retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting claims made by AiG. In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff engaged in an online debate[72] with representatives from the Australian Skeptics in Margo Kingston's section of the Sydney Morning Herald.[73]
In the documentary The Story of God, Professor Robert Winston debated Ken Ham on a radio show. Professor Winston challenged him with questions based on a conventional scientific approach.
[edit] From creationists
Ham's beliefs and tactics have also been criticized by other Christians. Answers in Creation, an Old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.[74] Astronomer Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, has publicly debated Ham on the age of the Earth and the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible,[75] as well as other Answers In Genesis staff.[76]
[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. Segments of the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by Answers in Genesis. A clip of the interview, which can be viewed at an Answers in Genesis web page,[77] 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.
This is discussed in Chapter two, Essay three of A Devil's Chaplain, a collection of selected essays by Richard Dawkins. The book describes the event as follows:
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realizing that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to ‘give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome’. It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was the point I tumbled to the fact that I been duped into granting an interview to creationists – a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview, because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.
My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe their question cannot be answered![78]
In an article by the Australian Skeptics, 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).[79] 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?[80] According to their account, Dawkins had been made aware of the interviewer's creationist sympathies. They further claim that the raw footage shows that Dawkins, after pausing for a long time, asked that the recording company stop recording the video. 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] Legal controversy with Creation Ministries International
On May 31, 2007, Creation Ministries International ("CMI") filed a lawsuit in Queensland's Supreme Court against Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis seeking damages and accusing him of "unbiblical/unethical/unlawful behaviour" in his dealings with the Australian organisation.[81]
Prior to the split, the Australian group had been producing magazines, "Creation Magazine" and "Journal of Creation", which were then distributed within other countries by local groups. The Australian group had no access to the list of subscribers in the USA. The USA group discontinued the distribution arrangement, and produced a new magazine of their own, called "Answers Magazine" and represented that to subscribers as a replacement. Creation Ministries International is claiming $252,000 (US) in damages for lost revenue by misleading and deceptive conduct in relating to lost subscriptions.[82] The case also concerns use of the trademark "Answers in Genesis" within Australia, and misuse by Ken Ham of his position as a director for the Australian group to cause them detriment.[82]
Answers in Genesis has had little to say in public to CMI's accusations, but in comments to news reporters Ken Ham dismisses them all as "totally preposterous and untrue".[83] Creation Ministries has made a large collection of documents available detailing their side of the case.[84] A more involved analysis of the situation, including estranged co-founder John Mackay's charges of necrophilia and witchcraft against Margaret Buchanan, who was at the time Ken Ham's personal secretary and later married CMI's Carl Wieland, is described in an account in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education.[85]
[edit] References
- ^ Feedback 21 May 2004 Answers in Genesis
- ^ David Menton - Biography Answers in Genesis, and his Ph.D thesis at the Brown University Library
- ^ Dr. Georgia Purdom Answers in Genesis
- ^ Dr. Jason Lisle Answers in Genesis
- ^ a b August 3: I-Team Charity Fact Check at the Internet Archive, WCPO TV
- ^ "Better Business Bureau: Answers in Genesis", Better Business Bureau, April 21, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ No more hide and seek Answers in Genesis
- ^ "Answers in Genesis in legal turmoil", National Center for Science Education, June 21, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ Biblical battle of creation groups, Michael McKenna, The Australian, June 4, 2007
- ^ Events, Creation Ministries International and What we are, Creation Ministries International
- ^ Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
- ^ Creation magazine Answers in Genesis
- ^ Creation magazine, Creation Ministries International
- ^ Journal of Creation, Creation Ministries International
- ^ NRB Convention & Exposition Answers in Genesis
- ^ "Reactions to creation "museum"", National Center for Science Education, May 25, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ Answers In Genesis of Kentucky 2005 Form 990 tax return
- ^ Research and Public Policy Institutions- Answers in Genesis by Charity Navigator
- ^ Ministry Watch full report on Answers in Genesis
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/babel.asp
- ^ ‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend? Answers in Genesis
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement
- ^ Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple? Answers in Genesis
- ^ The sun: our special star
- ^ Get Answers: Astronomy and Astrophysics Answers in Genesis
- ^ Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
- ^ How can we see distant stars in a young universe? Answers in Genesis
- ^ Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts show
- ^ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#humphreys Accessed on 12 August 2007.
- ^ Astronomy And The Bible
- ^ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
- ^ The Horizon Problem
- ^ Get Answers: Created Kinds (Baraminology)
- ^ CB050: Abiogenesis is speculation?
- ^ Get Answers: Natural Selection
- ^ Bears across the world
- ^ Copying confusion
- ^ Okada H, Negoro S, Kimura H, Nakamura S (1983). "Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers". Nature 306 (5939): 203-6. doi:. PMID 6646204.
- ^ Yomo T, Urabe I, Okada H (1992). "No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 89 (9): 3780-4. doi:. PMID 1570296.
- ^ Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I (1995). "Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution". Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61 (5): 2020-2. PMID 7646041.
- ^ The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste
- ^ Cheating with chance
- ^ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 323
- ^ Wright MC, Joyce GF (1997). "Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function". Science 276 (5312): 614-7. doi:. PMID 9110984.
- ^ Cairns-Smith: detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis
- ^ Carl Wieland. "Evolution and social evil", Answers in Genesis, 27 April 2004. Retrieved on 2008-05-17.
- ^ The evolutionizing of a culture Answers in Genesis
- ^ The evolutionizing of a culture Answers in Genesis
- ^ Honest science 'left behind' in US education bill, Answers in Genesis, 2002
- ^ Linking and feeding Answers in Genesis, 2004
- ^ See these articles on Answersingenesis.org: Creation in public schools? and Honest science ‘left behind’ in US education bill
- ^ Kurt Wise. "Creation crisis in Christian colleges". Answers in Genesis January 31, 2006
- ^ Antidote to abortion arguments Answers in Genesis
- ^ Offended by the term ‘Baby Killers’ Answers in Genesis, 2001
- ^ What about abortion to save the mother’s life Answers in Genesis, 2005
- ^ Get Answers: Abortion and Euthanasia
- ^ Stem cells and Genesis
- ^ But from the beginning of ... the institution of marriage?, Answers in Genesis, 2005
- ^ Feedback 6 February 2004: Objections to homosexuality article, AiG helps Lita helped to come to faith<, Answers in Genesis, 2004
- ^ Get Answers: Racism and evolution
- ^ Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
- ^ The Holocaust and evolution
- ^ Get Answers: Communism and Nazism
- ^ The Scopes “Monkey trial”—80 years later
- ^ Scopes Trial - Excerpts from Hunter's Civic Biology Text - UMKC School of Law
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/1007.asp
- ^ "Onward the new Christian soldier", The Sydney Morning Herald, January 17, 2005. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ If dinosaurs could talk, Answers in Genesis, 2005
- ^ "Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs", The New York Times, May 24, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ "Reactions to creation "museum"", National Center for Science Education, May 25, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ "No Answers in Genesis", No Answers in Genesis, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ "Australian Skeptics vs AiG–Australia", Answers in Genesis, 15 June 2005. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.
- ^ "Australian Skeptics vs AiG–Australia Debate", The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June 2005. Retrieved on 2007-04-06.
- ^ Greg Neyman. Ham Can't Tell the Simple Truth!. Answers in Creation. September 12, 2005
- ^ Fair and balanced? A commentary on the John Ankerberg TV debate on the age of the earth, Steven McConaughy, Answers in Genesis
- ^ Jason Lisle vs. Hugh Ross debate: annotated transcript, Jonathan Sarfati, AiG–Australia, 14 April 2005
- ^ Rushing in—where wiser heads might not
- ^ Dawkins, Richard. "The "Information Challenge"", p. 617. in Cohen, Neal J. (1995). Memory, Amnesia, and the Hippocampal System. MIT Press. ISBN 0262531321.
- ^ "Creationist Deception Exposed", Australian Skeptics, March 1998. Retrieved on 2008-04-06. Skeptic, Vol 18 No 3
- ^ Skeptics choke on Frog, Answers in Genesis
- ^ McKenna, Michael. "Biblical battle of creation groups", The Australian, June 4, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-07-17.
- ^ a b Statement of Claim (4690/07 Supreme Court of Brisbane), <http://www.creationontheweb.biz/statement-of-claim.pdf>. Retrieved on 18 July 2007. Photocopy supplied at the CMI website; official court files listing here [1].
- ^ Mead, Andy (June 17, 2007), “Museum group sued by fellow creationists”, Lexington Herald-Leader: A1
- ^ Why CMI-Australia is holding AiG-US legally accountable for its actions, Creation Ministries International, <http://www.creationontheweb.biz/lawsuit_justification.html>. Retrieved on 18 July 2007
- ^ Trouble in Paradise: Answers in Genesis Splinters, Jim Lippard, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (6): 4-7, November 2006.
[edit] External links
[edit] Official
- Answers in Genesis website
- Answers in Genesis Creation Museum website
- Creation Ministries website Comprised of former Answers in Genesis offices
[edit] Critical
- Answers In Creation Old-earth creationist site allegedly demonstrating numerous errors in the work of Answers in Genesis
- No Answers in Genesis website A site explicitly critical of Answers in Genesis
- National Center for Science Education
- The Talk.Origins Archive
- Barry Yeoman. "Creation Nation", The Independent Weekly
- "Fellow Christians Aggrieved by Business Practices of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis", Christian Faith and Reason May 27, 2007
