Answers in Genesis

AiG's logo

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a not-for-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus 'on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis' [1]. AiG is devoted to the belief of Young Earth Creationism, specifically a "plain" reading of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, but states that this is 'secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ' [2].

AiG employs a staff exclusively of Christian evangelicals, including at least 10 who have earned Ph.D. science degrees from secular universities, including some in biology and geology (though not for publishing work supporting creationism). Their literal interpretation of Genesis has found no support in peer reviewed mainstream scientific literature, which is peer reviewed by scientists belonging to almost every possible religious orientation (including but not exclusive to atheism).

History

AiG was started in Australia in the late 1970s by John Mackay and Ken Ham and others who believed that the established 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 Supplies, later changed to Creation Science Foundation (CSF).

In 1978, a separate Australian organisation started by Dr. Carl Wieland began the magazine Ex Nihilo, from the Latin phrase Creatio ex nihilo meaning "Creation out of nothing". Soon after, CSF took over production of Ex Nihilo, and later renamed it Creation Ex Nihilo and eventually simply Creation. In 1984, CSF started the Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for more in-depth analysis of creation issues. It was later renamed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal then simply TJ. TJ is a refereed journal, reviewed mainly by scientists in the creationist community.[3] It has a primarily theological (as opposed to scientific) purpose, and its guidelines begin with

TJ is dedicated to upholding the authority of the 66 books of the Bible especially in the area of origins. All members of the Editorial Team adhere to the Answers in Genesis (AiG) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this. [4]

(This can be contrasted with mainstream scientific journals that do not inquire regarding the religious orientations of their editors or contributors.)

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.

With offices in many English-speaking countries, AiG publishes books and multimedia resources, as well as a website featuring articles and papers. AiG is also expanding into the non-English speaking world with translations and outreach ministry.

Tax-exempt status

AiG is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code [5]. According to the charitynavigator website [6] AiG had a US $9,016,228 total revenue in FYE 2003, with president Ken Ham recieving a compensation of US$170,217. The website of WCPO TV has reported that in 2003, AiG "did not meet all of the [Better Business] Bureau's accountability standards" (emphasis in original) [7] Bill Wise, of AiG answered that this was due to a "miscommunication, understanding regarding document submittals back in August of 2002." (ibid [8])

The Creation Museum

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, AiG 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 the history of the World according to mainstream evangelical Christian 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" [9].

Amongst its various displays and exhibits, the museum is being designed to include life-size dinosaurs, large movie screens depicting epics from the Old Testament, a planetarium depicting God making the Earth in six days, a re-creation of Noah's Ark, and a three-dimensional depiction of the crucifixion. There is special attention being paid to the dinosaurs being depicted in the Garden of Eden. The Tyrannosaurus Rex (a theropod dinosaur with large serrated teeth) will be depicted [10] (contrary to all other evidence) as a vegetarian, as according to the Bible, there was no death in the Garden of Eden.

The expected cost of the building, interior designs and exhibits is around US $25 million. They have so far raised $18 million in donations [11]. This was reported in the press [12] and on skeptical websites (e.g. [13]), where it was contrasted with the failure of the American Museum of Natural History to find corporate sponsorship for their Charles Darwin exhibit.

The museum practices religious discrimination in its hiring practices. The staff (even including janitorial workers) will have to produce a salvation testimony and a creation belief statement as a condition for employment [14].

As of early 2005, the first stage of the museum is nearing completion, and the museum is expected to open completely in the spring of 2007.

Facts and figures

AiG offices exist in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, Canada, and the United States.
In 2000, their quarterly Creation magazine had subscribers in about 140 countries, and 60,000 copies of each issue were being produced. [15]
In September 2004, their website, which is also translated into many foreign languages, had 35,000–47,000 visits per day. [16]

Teachings and beliefs

Methodology

AiG describes their biblical hermeneutical method as "plain" (or sometimes "grammatical-historical") and why they believe it is more precise 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?

E.g., 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.[17]

Self-described mission

AiG's mission on the top of their website is: "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse", so AiG supports Biblical inerrancy and Sola scriptura. AiG's Statement of Faith begins:

(A) PRIORITIES

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.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

(B) BASICS

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. …

Apologetic method

AiG emphasises a presuppositional rather than evidentialist approach to apologetics. This is not to say that they deny the role of scientific evidence, but that they argue that evidence must be interpreted according to a framework, which depends on the axioms or presuppositions we start with.[18]

AiG tries to present primarily 'scientific' arguments for Creationism, though many scientists would dispute that their arguments can really be called science. They avoid many of the rhetorical methods used by many of their contemporaries. Many of their arguments against biological evolution are similar to those of the Intelligent design movement. Critics charge that many of their arguments are arguments against evolution rather than for Creationism, as if disproving evolution gives credence to Creation. AiG argues that this is just what many evolutionists have done, except in reverse: claim "God wouldn't have done it what way, so evolution must have done it."[19] AiG says that neither view can be scientifically proved nor disproved, and that they seek to show that the evidence better fits with creation than evolution.

AiG's views on moral and social issues

Life issues

AiG takes a strong pro-life stance on abortion (even in the case of rape) and euthanasia,[20] and is opposed to embryonic stem cell research (but supports somatic/adult stem cell research).[21]

Marriage and homosexuality

AiG defends marriage as one man and one woman for life, based on (Gen. 1:27) and (Gen. 2:24), which Jesus cited in (Mat. 19:3–6) and (Mar 10:5–9).[22] [23] AiG rejects homosexual behavior [24] and polygamy [25], while AiG sees nothing wrong with so-called Interracial marriage [26].

They have also made the following claim

" The way they [media] describe certain wayward Catholic priests (a tiny minority) as ‘pedophile priests’. However, they would be far better described as ‘gay priests’, since their usual targets were adolescent boys rather than little girls." Jonathan Sarfati Feb 2005 [27].

AiG has referred to homosexuals who advocate imprisoning pastors who preach that homosexual behavior is sinful as "homonazis" and sodomofascists [28].

"Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Green was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom." Jonathan Sarfati Feb 2005 [29].

Homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Defenders of Sarfati and AiG would argue that the above quotes show that if anything, the shoe is on the other foot, and some homosexuals want to imprison those who dissent from their beliefs.

Evolution and race

AiG also connects belief in evolutionary theory with the eugenics and racial theories of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, as well as Soviet Communism.[30] In dealing with Christendom's own violent history, the group claims that anyone who used the Bible to justify atrocities (such as during the Crusades or the colonization of the New World) was clearly misinterpreting the Bible's intent (e.g., Jesus says to love your enemies and bless them that curse you Matthew 5:44).[31]

Merged with this approach is the concurrence between AiG and some scientists that "race" is a meaningless construct, which AiG sees as supported by scripture. Using this line of argument, AiG argues that Creationism, along with other Biblical teachings, is the only true answer to the social problem of racism, and that Evolution has (and still does) promote racism [32].

To support this view, AiG cites selections from early 20th century biology textbooks (such as Hunter's Civic Biology, the textbook used in the Scopes Trial) which illustrate the close connection between theories of eugenics and theories of evolution. Eugenics was a movement founded by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, after his reading of Darwin's Origin of Species. As a movement it was popular in the United States during the 1920s and early 1930s but soon after went into decline, just as it was gaining support in Nazi Germany.[33] After World War II, it quickly became an unpopular concept in much of the world. (see the page on Eugenics for more on this history)

No historian of racial thinking would deny that many people interpreted Darwinian evolution (or at least invoked it) as justifying various discriminatory models of society, and that at least through the 1960s these interpretations were fairly common in mainstream scientific circles. In the last few decades there has arguably been a sustained effort on the part of evolution scientists to distance themselves from racist interpretations of genetics. Perhaps the most notable work in this regard is Stephen Jay Gould's somewhat controversial book, The Mismeasure of Man.

Although AiG implicates "materialist" science (as skeptics have implicated biblical teachings), it should be noted that for the most part, both AiG and modern scientists are united against the casual misinterpretation of data to support racism.

Answers in Genesis's views on cosmology and astronomy

AiG disagrees with the big bang and inflationary theories of the beginning of the universe and believes there are significant problems with this cosmology [34]. They have cited genuine disagreement in the scientific community regarding origins cosmologies [35][36].

It is worth noting that though early cosmology has always been a hotly debated topic amongst physicists, the vast majority have accepted the big bang theory (e.g. see [37]). This is in large part due to the observed red-shift in distant galaxies and the recent observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, both of which are consistent with big bang models. Even though a minority of physicists have questioned aspects of the big bang model, and say that the big bang has many problems but is the ruling paradigm,[38] they have not proposed a young Earth model in its stead, nor have they indicated (at least in publications in mainstream journals) that an alteration or rejection of the big bang would make the young Earth hypothesis any more likely. No mainstream scientists have proposed a cosmology in which the universe is not on the order of at least some billions of years old.

AiG has also claimed that recent research suggests that our galaxy could lie at the center of the universe [39]. AiG have adopted a cosmological worldview in which the Sun was created three days after the creation of the Earth, at around 6000 years ago [40].

These views receive no support from the vast majority of astronomers and physicists and there do not appear to be any papers in peer-reviewed academic journals that support AiG's statements.

Criticism

No Answers in Genesis is a site maintained by members of Australian Skeptics led by retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting AiG. Some creationists use a statement from the scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist to argue that Stear's atheism adds a bias to his arguments. He has responded (to similar arguments):

The fact is that what I believe personally has no bearing on my management of a web site that is dedicated to, and is obviously succeeding in, exposing creationism. [41]

Also, the Australian Skeptics make a point of stating on their application form [42] that their members have diverse political and religious opinions.

Though numerous skeptic sites, including No Answers in Genesis link to AiG, AiG does not reciprocate in providing links to sites containing alternative points of view.

In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff scientists debated a team from the Australian Skeptics online on Margo Kingston's web diary section of the Sydney Morning Herald website.[43]

Is Answers in Genesis a scientific organization?

Most modern scientists would not regard the work of AiG as science, using the term as it is normally understood. This can be more of a categorization issue, than a criticism per se, since many non-scientific ideas can be factually true. (e.g. "I liked that book" may not a particularly scientific statement, but it may be true.) Most scientists have problems with

AiG makes statements that are in fundamental disagreement with widely accepted parts of modern science. This does not by itself make those statements wrong, but it does put them out of the mainstream. Also, scientists and skeptics argue that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". Thus, it is felt that the onus lies on AiG (who make the claims) to provide a high level of proof for non-mainstream claims. Most mainstream scientists would not accept that AiG have met this level.
It can be argued that AiG's arguments are not falsifiable, since they begin by assuming the inerrancy of the Bible. Thus, even if the Bible is truly inerrant, they have not provided the scope for questioning this assumption. This is in contrast to mainstream modern science, in which no fact (or collection of facts) is held to be unquestionably true, no matter how certain individual scientists are. (In this regard it should be noted that very few scientists would have a problem with someone claiming biblical inerrancy as a religious rather than scientific statement.)
Science is generally understood to be the pursuit of naturalistic explanations. Proposing theological explanations is philisophically difficult because it is hard to imagine what the scientific evidence would look like. For example, it could be true that a deity created protons through a miracle, but it is difficult to conceive of a scientific experiment which would demonstrate the truthfulness (or falsity) of this statement. Again, such statements are generally held to be unfalsifiable (whether they are actually true or not).
The apparent inability of Biblical creationists to make new discoveries, as opposed to confirming the Biblical truth of discoveries that have already been made. For example, the discovery of Planck's constant may not be in contradiction to Scripture, but it was not discovered using Scripture. Most co-religionists agree that this is simply because the Bible was not intended to be a scientific document.
There are no papers published in peer-reviewed mainstream science journals that explicitly support creationism. Creationists have argued that this is because of a materialist bias in such journals, which discriminates and excludes any of their work [44],[45],[46]. In response, most scientists would argue that the only bias is one in favor of empirically testable facts. Also, it would be hard to explain how thousands of disparate journals spread across many countries could have connived to exclude one specific group.
AiG has not produced a single paper which has been accepted by a mainstream science journal.

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[47]. They use the criteria that each member of the list must contain a doctorate in a scientific field. It is worth noting that none of the scientists listed have earned a Ph.D for publishing work promoting creationism. In response to this- and similar lists, the (US) National Center for Science Education's Project Steve (after the late Stephen Jay Gould) is a somewhat 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 as opposed to 637 "Steves" on the NCSE list.

Strictly speaking, it should be noted that science is not a popularity contest, in which the majority view is always correct. However the above data shows that creationism is very much a minority view amongst modern PhD holders in scientific disciplines.

The ACLU also maintains the list "What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design" [48]. None of the mainstream scientific organizations on the list endorse intelligent design and/or creationism as scientific.

Criticisms of specific claims made by Answers in Genesis

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, how is there light from stars which are farther than 6,000 light years away? AIG has answered that big bang proponents have a light-travel-time problem of their own, namely the horizon problem [49] and have proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.[50] See also: Starlight problem.
If humans and dinosaurs co-existed, why are there no known cases of human "fossils" (or any modern species for that matter) found in or around dinosaur fossils? AiG has responded by pointing out that coelacanths and whales are likewise not found fossilzed together, but they live together today .
The ministry specifies that Noah's flood was an event covering the entire earth with several kilometres of water. But AiG points out what evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace calculated:

if all the land surface and ocean floors were reduced to one level, that is, if the solid mass of the globe were a true oblate spheroid, the whole would be covered with water about two miles deep.[51]

According to the AiG "Answer book", Psa. 104:8 (NASB) says that the mountains rose and valleys sank, and the water flowed down. This would have made the flood waters run into the current ocean basins.

Psa. 104:8 is given as [52]:

they [the waters] flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.

A single flood event would not account for the multiple geological levels with the organization of ascending complexity. However, Guy Berthault's sedimentation experiments[53] and other field work [54] claim to show how multiple lamination can form in one go.

None of the above claims by AiG have received any support in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

Controversy over Interview with Richard Dawkins

In 1998, AiG filmed an interview 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 AiG. The interview, which can be viewed at an AiG web page [55] 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.

In an article by the Australian_Skeptics [56], the film was alleged to have been carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to answer the question, whereas in fact 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 related to the Australian Skeptics how the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, 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.

AiG has responded in an article Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?. According to their account, the raw footage shows that Dawkins, who had previously been informed of the interviewer's creationist sympathies, was asked the same question and could not anwser. The video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity.

Answers in Genesis and the Indian Ocean tsunami and hurricane Katrina disasters

AiG has published an article [57] claiming that the Indian_Ocean_Earthquake and resulting tsunami (in which approximately 275,000 people died) must be attributed to the action of God, and not just a statistical event. The article attributes the reason for God's actions to be traceable to Adam's sin, but also makes it clear that one cannot correlate particular sins with particular disasters.

There are daily reminders of His Curse on all creation all around us. When they are punctuated by horrifically sad concentrated bursts such as this recent disaster, we are doubly reminded of the awfulness of sin. ... A skeptic at one of my talks said publicly that the Flood would make God “the biggest mass murderer in history.” But murder is defined as the unlawful killing of innocent human life. First, from God’s perspective post-Fall, there is no such thing as an "innocent human".

They also wrote (ibid)

But if we try to avoid God’s responsibility for the killer tsunami, and pass the event off as “natural” (read “truly random”) then we are doing the same thing—we have reduced God, the all-powerful Creator God who created countless galaxies in the blink of an eye, to a helpless or impotent bystander.

Using similar reasoning, AiG wrote in response to the 2005 hurricane Katrina disaster in which the official death toll stands at 1,325

Ultimately, because of man’s sin, the whole creation is groaning in judgment by this act of high treason committed against the God of creation Ken Ham [58]

Origin of cell and cumulative selection

AiG do not merely present a non-naturalistic alternative to evolution- their interpretation of evolution is different from that understood by mainstream scientists working in the evolutionary field. Because AiG are adamant that evolution is wrong, it is important to understand whether they are attacking actual positions held by mainstream evolutionists.

They cite the probability of a cell coming into existence as more than 1 in 10^1057800 [59]. (This page does not state whether this probability is supposed to represent one event per second or per lifetime of the universe, and AiG's statement without further clarification is controversial.) This is, as they correctly point out, an outstandingly improbable event, which would appear to require a larger explanation than 'mere' chance.

However, a central tenet of Darwinian evolution is that it is a gradual process and organisms do not suddenly evolve in discrete jumps (e.g. creation of wings or eyes in one generation). Natural selection is a non-random process, which acts on small changes to provide cumulative large changes over time. Thus, mainstream evolutionary scientists agree that the probability that a cell would suddenly come into existence is irrelevant in judging the veracity of evolution.

Also, both Darwinian evolutionists and AiG agree that Darwinian evolution is not a theory of how life began- rather it is a theory of the variability in life through natural processes.

AiG have discussed the theory of cumulative change through natural selection. They have also provided criticisms of algorithms designed by Richard Dawkins which purport to show natural selection in practice.[60]

An article from AiG discusses the overwhelming improbability of the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli [61]. Again, there are no modern scientists publishing in mainstream journals who claim that bacteria spontaneously emerge. The idea of spontaneous genesis of bacteria is a pre-scientific idea, which was all but abandoned after the creationist Louis Pasteur's work. Earlier, at least as far as 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air (as opposed to spontaneously generating). AiG has argued against the probability of even the simplest living cell arriving by chance.[62]

In a discussion on probability, AiG further discuss [63] the ability for mere chance to create information rich structures. Evolutionists however do not consider that the evolutionary mechanism works through chance (except in the trivial sense that everything has a probability of occuring between 0 and 1). The prominent evolution scientist, professor Richard Dawkins has said in response to similar views:

This is a spectacular misunderstanding. If it was random, then of course it couldn't possibly have given rise to the fantastically complicated and elegant forms that we see. Natural selection is the important force that drives evolution. Natural selection is about as non-random a force as you could possibly imagine. It can't work unless there is some sort of variation upon which to work. And the source of variation is mutation. Mutation is random only in the sense that it is not directed specifically toward improvement. It is natural selection that directs evolution toward improvement. Mutation is random in that it's not directed toward improvement.
The idea that evolution itself is a random process is a most extraordinary travesty. I wonder if it's deliberately put about maliciously or whether these people honestly believe such a preposterous absurdity. Of course evolution isn't random. It is driven by natural selection, which is a highly non-random force.

[64]

AiG disagrees with evolution, but they have a very controversial interpretation of what evolution is. Their characterization of evolution is not one that is recognized by evolutionary scientists, or mainstream scientific journals and organizations.

External links

AiG website
AiG's Statement of Faith
AiG's Creation Museum website
Answers In Creation Old-earth creationist site allegedly demonstrating numerous errors in the work of Answers in Genesis
No Answers in Genesis website (site explicitly critical of AIG)
Institute for Creation Research Another young-earth organization that sometimes joins forces with Answers in Genesis but is independent and has slightly different emphases
Young Earth Evidence and Rebuttals