العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolANSWERS IN GENESIS
'Answers in Genesis' ('AiG') is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on Young Earth creationism and a literal, or "plain",[1] interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.
Answers in Genesis believes that "the scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge", and that "[t]he doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ".[2]
The organization had offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In 2006 all but the US and UK branches became known as Creation Ministries International. AiG employs a staff of Christian evangelicals, some of whom have earned doctorates from secular universities in various sciences, including biology, geology, and astrophysics. In September 2004, its website, which is available in English and a number of other languages, had 35,000–47,000 visits per day.[3]
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 in the face of ever-increasing attacks by secularists. They merged with Carl Wieland's ''Creation Science Association'' in 1980 to become the ''Creation Science Foundation'' (CSF) which would become ''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".
In February 2006, Answers in Genesis-USA "withdrew" (together with the UK office) 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). 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'', however they are now speaking ministries as well [1] [2]. Answers in Genesis-UK continues to work closely with Answers in Genesis-USA and distributes ''Answers'' in the UK (see below).
Answers in Genesis publishes books and multimedia resources, as well as a website featuring articles and papers. In June 2006 Answers in Genesis launched ''Answers''.[4] as a replacement to CMI's ''Creation'' magazine [5]. AiG-US and AiG-UK no longer distribute ''Creation'' [3] or the ''Journal of Creation'' [4] in the United States or United Kingdom. Answers in Genesis is expanding into the non-English speaking world with translations and outreach ministry.
After some of AiG's comments in late 2006, Answers in Genesis became involved in a legal dispute with Creation Ministries International. CMI has accused AiG-USA of damaging and publicly defaming their ministry. [5] In 2007, CMI filed suit against AiG-USA alleging a variety of wrongdoings.[6]
Apologetic methodology
Answers in Genesis describes their biblical hermeneutical method as "plain" (or sometimes "Historical-grammatical"), rather than "literal":
:Simply put, our bottom line is that the proper interpretation of Scripture is to take it "plainly", meaning "as the author intended it to be understood by the original audience". This incorporates a literal interpretation of a literal context, poetic interpretation of poetic context, etc. This is covered in depth in the article "Should Genesis be taken literally?"[6]
:With Genesis, we can tell it is meant to be historic narrative because it has all the grammatical features of Hebrew narrative, e.g., the first verb is a ''qatal'' (historic perfect), and the verbs that move the narrative forward are ''wayyiqtols'' (''waw'' consecutives); it contains many "accusative particles" that mark the objects of verbs; and terms are often carefully defined.[7]
Answers in Genesis emphasizes a presuppositional rather than an evidentialist approach to apologetics.[8] This is not to say that they deny the role of scientific evidence, but that they believe that all scientists start with axioms or presuppositions, which govern how the evidence is interpreted. Thus their view is a form of critical realism.
Jonathan Sarfati (of Creation Ministries International) has written for Answers in Genesis that "the difference between creation and evolution is not about the evidence, but the presuppositions by which we interpret the evidence".[9] Answers in Genesis argues, for example, that a scientist with the presupposition that the Earth is billions of years old will interpret the Grand Canyon as an example of slow, drawn-out erosion. In contrast, a Young Earth creationist will see this as a rapid formation by catastrophic quantities of water. Answers in Genesis claims that neither view can be scientifically proved nor disproved, but that the evidence fits better with supernatural, and specifically Judeo-Christian theistic presuppositions, than with naturalistic ones.
Answers in Genesis presents scientific arguments in support of their primarily theological views of origins.[10] Many of their arguments against biological evolution are similar to those of the intelligent design movement, whose position they do not fully agree with (such as ID's position on the inability to identify the designer [7]).
In 2006, the National Religious Broadcasters awarded Answers in Genesis (Hebron, Kentucky) their Best Ministry Website award.[11]
Views on science
Answers in Genesis rejects much of the scientific consensus regarding cosmology, geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology. Instead, a number of hypotheses (considered pseudoscience by the wider scientific community) are promoted to explain how the universe, the Earth and life could have originated within the last 10,000 years.
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.[12] They reject the mainstream theories of cosmology,[13] because they contradict AiG's interpretation of the text of the Bible.[2]
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[15] and prefers a model proposed by creationist physicist Russell Humphreys[16] 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.[17] 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."[18]
The idea of the Milky Way existing near the center of the universe is very close to modern geocentrism, but AiG has intentionally distanced themselves from claims that the planet Earth is the exact center of the universe.[19]
AiG believes that the creationists' distant starlight problem is similar to the historically significant "horizon problem" of the Big Bang theory.[20] While the general consensus of cosmologists is that the horizon problem is solved by inflationary theory as a model for the universe,[21] there is no creationist consensus on the solution to the distant starlight problem.
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''”.[22] This view has found no support amongst the scientific community.[23]
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.[24] 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.[25] 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.[26] However, examples of novel information appearing in an organism's genome have been described by scientists, such as in the nylon-eating bacteria, a strain of ''Flavobacterium'' that evolved entirely new enzymes to digest nylon, a polymer that wasn't invented until 1935.[27][28] 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.[29]
AIG has responded to such critiques 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. [30]
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[31], similar to estimates of some other scientists, such as microbiologist Dr. Michael Denton[32], Harold Morowitz, Sir Frederick Hoyle, and Michael Hart. AIG believes that this event is an outstandingly improbable event, which would appear to require 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,[33][34] cumulate small probabilities and that creationist statistical analysis does not describe the true probability of complex chemicals evolving into a cell.
Morality and social issues
Science education
Answers in Genesis does not support laws or school board standards that would force the teaching of creationism in public schools. It is their position that forcing a teacher to present the theory of creation will only result in it being distorted by those who don't believe in it.[35] 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".[36] Answers in Genesis is opposed to what they consider censorship of educators who want to teach evidence they consider contradictory to the theory of evolution or why there is controversy regarding this subject.[37]
Answers in Genesis believes the problem also extends to Christian colleges and universities where, by AiG's own estimate, "probably more than 90%" of the professors do not believe in a young Earth. Only five regionally accredited [non-denominational] Christian colleges offer young Earth oriented biology degrees and none offer geology degrees with a young Earth emphasis, according to creationist Kurt Wise. The organization cites with concern a survey of Wheaton College students which indicated that while 47% of incoming students believed in a young Earth, only 27% did so at the time the survey was taken.[38]
Life issues
Answers in Genesis takes a strong pro-life stance on abortion because they regard individual life as beginning at fertilization.[39] 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,[40] except to save the life of the mother.[41] They are also strongly opposed to euthanasia,[42] and embryonic stem cell research, but support somatic/adult stem cell research which does not require the destruction of fetuses.[43]
Homosexuality
Answers in Genesis considers marriage to consist of one man and one woman for life,[44] based on Genesis 1:27[45] and Genesis 2:24,[45] which Jesus cited in Matthew 19:3-6[45] and Mark 10:5-9.[45] In claiming that homosexuality is a sin, Answers in Genesis has cited writings by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27[45] and 1 Corinthians 6:9[45] 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.[45] Answers in Genesis believes that the punishments described in the Old Testament Law, such as Leviticus 20:13, were for the Jews up to the time of Christ and have stated that they "reject the implication that we are proposing any sort of ill-treatment of homosexuals, or rejection of the sinner, as opposed to the sin."[52]
Evolution and race
AiG asserts that belief in evolutionary theory contributes to eugenics and racial theories[53] which supported the policies of Nazi Germany[54] in its prosecution of the Holocaust[55], as well as the evils of Soviet Communism[56] under Stalin. To support these views, Answers in Genesis quotes[57] the 1914 American textbook ''Hunter's Civic Biology''[58] 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"''. AiG does not point out that such racist views reflected both public understanding and the public laws of the time and have not been either accepted or promoted by mainstream biologists since the 1930's.[59]
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".[9]
Culture and media
Answers in Genesis has accused Hollywood of using "subtle tactics" to slip in "evolutionary content".[60] Movies and television programs they have criticized for doing this include ''The Munsters'', ''Lilo & Stitch'', Bugs Bunny cartoons, ''Fantasia'', and ''Finding Nemo''.[60]
Tax-exempt status
Answers in Genesis-US is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in the United States of America.[62]
The website of WCPO TV[63] has reported that in 2003, Answers in Genesis-US "did 'not' meet all of the Better Business Bureau's accountability standards" (emphasis in original).http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/charitycheck.html 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." Answers in Genesis-US is now listed as meeting each of the Better Business Bureau's 19 standards for charitable accountability.[64]
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 in 2006.[65]
The Creation Museum
Main articles: Creation Museum
Logo of 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."[66]
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[67]
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.[68]
Criticism
Mainstream critics
No Answers in Genesis [10] is a website maintained by members of the Australian Skeptics and is maintained by retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting claims made by AiG. In June 2005, AiG-Australia[69] staff engaged in an online debate [11] with representatives from the Australian Skeptics in Margo Kingston's web diary section of the ''Sydney Morning Herald'' website.
In response to claims by critics that creationism is not supported by practicing scientists, AiG has compiled a list of "scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation"[70] As of writing, AiG's list contains 186 people claiming a PhD-level qualification, of which around seventy are in fields related to evolutionary biology, with the remainder from fields as diverse as plastic surgery, linguistics, psychiatry, mechanical engineering and dentistry. In response to such lists, the (US) National Center for Science Education instigated ''Project Steve''[12] (after Stephen Jay Gould) which is a tongue-in-cheek list of scientists who possess a PhD level qualification in a biological science, who accept evolution and 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 with restrictive entry criteria will be significantly larger than any similar unrestricted list of PhDs who accept creationism. As of the April 7, 2007, AiG's list contains 186 entries and the NCSE's list contains 810[71].
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.
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.[72] 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,[73] as well as other Answers In Genesis staff.[74]
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,[75] 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!
In an article by the Australian Skeptics,[76] it was alleged that the film was carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to adequately answer the question and that the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins reported to the Australian Skeptics that the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, it was claimed that the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.
Answers in Genesis has responded in an article: ''Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?''[77] 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. They did this but kept the audio running in order to preserve an uncut original, which has now been released to the public. Dawkins was asked the same question later after the video recording had resumed. The "Skeptics choke on Frog" video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity.
Legal controversy with Creation Ministries International
On May 31, 2007, Creation Ministries International 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.[78]
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 own 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.[79] 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.
Answers in Genesis has had little to say in public to these accusations, but in comments to news reporters Ken Ham dismisses them all as "totally preposterous and untrue". [45] Creation Ministries has made a large collection of documents available detailing their side of the case.[45]
References
1. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0521.asp
2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0914search_engine.asp
4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/curl.asp?cid=14882
5. http://www.creationontheweb.com/creation
6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp
7. https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/feedback/2004/1126.asp
8. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0610.asp
9. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0610.asp
10. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/editorial.asp
11. http://content.nrb.org/press/2006awards.htm
12. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp
13. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang
14. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
15. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay
16. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
17. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp
18. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#humphreys Accessed on 12 Aug 2007.
19. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#1
20. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
21. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html
22. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/kinds.asp
23. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
24. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp
25. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box
26. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
27. Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers, Okada H, Negoro S, Kimura H, Nakamura S, , , Nature, 1983
28. No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation, Yomo T, Urabe I, Okada H, , , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 1992
29. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution, Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I, , , Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 1995
30. [8]
31. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp
32. ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis'', (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 323
33. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function, Wright MC, Joyce GF, , , Science, 1997
34. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/Quotes/cairns-smith_RNA.asp
35. https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp
36. https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0720linking.asp
37. See these articles on Answersingenesis.org: ''Creation in public schools?'' and ''Honest science ‘left behind’ in US education bill''
38. Kurt Wise. "Creation crisis in Christian colleges". Jan. 31, 2006
39. http://www.answersingenesis.org/reviews/beckwith.asp
40. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative12feb2001.asp
41. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/feedback/2005/0222.asp
42. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/humanlife.asp
43. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/stem_cells.asp
44. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1101ankerberg_response.asp
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp
53. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp
54. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp
55. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp
56. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/communism.asp
57. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0711scopes.asp
58. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt192.htm
59. http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-supp/text/thurtle.html
60. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp
61. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp
62. http://www.answersingenesis.org/donate/
63. http://www.wcpo.com/
64. http://search.cincinnati.bbb.org/default3.asp?strTheForm=2&ID=1&strBCode=02920000&ComID=0292000005001292
65. Ministry Watch full report on Answers in Genesis
66. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810774805.html
67. http://answersingenesis.org/museum/docs2005/0523dinosaurs.asp
68. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?_r=1&em&ex=1180238400&en=b95a574977c8d65a&ei=5087%0A&oref=login
69. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0615debate.asp
70. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp
71. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html
72. Greg Neyman. Ham Can't Tell the Simple Truth!. Answers in Creation. Sept. 12, 2005
73. Ham and Lisle vs. Ross and Kaiser [13]
74. Lisle vs. Ross debate [14]
75. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp
76. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creationistdeceptionexposed.htm
77. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp
78. Biblical battle of creation groups Michael McKenna
79. . Photocopy supplied at the CMI website; official court files listing here [15].
80.
81.
External links
Official
★ Answers in Genesis website
★ Answers in Genesis Creation Museum website
★ Creation Ministries website Comprised of former Answers in Genesis offices
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
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
Featured Companies
| Dancing Moon Travel | |
| Alpine Interface Inc. | |
| Travelbugs, LLC | |
| Golf Holidays International |
