Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Second sentence and other matters

The second sentence of the lede has been the subject of, how shall I put it, some discussion. To be clear, this is the sentence as it stands:

It advocates a [[Biblical literalism|literal]] or [[Historical-grammatical method|historical-grammatical]] interpretation of the [[Book of Genesis]], with a particular focus on a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] promotion of [[young Earth creationism]], which rejects those results of [[scientific investigation]] that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the [[Genesis creation narrative]].

and so it appears as:

It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis, with a particular focus on a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism, which rejects those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.

When I first saw the ongoing conflict after seeing a thread at WP:AN, one of my first thoughts was about the phrase "pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism" – which, as far as I can see, had not been raised. I wondered why pseudoscientific was used as a modifier of "promotion" when I thought it was YEC that was the pseudoscience. I was going to post here until I saw that ජපස had modified it to "promoting the pseudoscience of young Earth creationism" with the edit summary "simpler wording. YEC is a pseudoscience." I thanked jps for his edit, I seemed to me to be a better choice of words. Unfortunately, Oldstone James reverted with the edit summary "Actually, creation science is a pseudoscience, as well as the allegedly 'scientific' promotion of YEC. YEC by itself is just a religious belief that does no claim to be a science, and hence cannot be a pseudoscience." This was followed by three further reverts in under ten minutes. Another revert by 1990'sguy followed a few hours later, and Guy Macon's WP:STATUSQUO revert returned us to 27 March. Three more edits (not to the second sentence) and a revert from Bloodofox and we are back to a protected article, courtesy of Black Kite, and OJ is serving a block under WP:3RR. It seems that nothing much here is actually uncontroversial and I think that we should use this period of protection to actually find some consensus – and I am not meaning to blame anyone as there are clearly some reasons for disagreement. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 1: Pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism

• As a scientist, I understand what promotion of a pseudoscience is, but I don't know what is meant by pseudoscientific promotion of something. It could mean the generation and use of pseudoscience in aid of promoting a yEc view but AiG starts from a religious viewpoint as I understand it, making such an interpretation seemunlikely to me. Jps' change made sense to me, but OJ objected on the grounds that yEc can't be a science if it is a religious belief. WP's own article on young Earth creationism defines it as "the religious belief that the universe and the Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago," and on that basis OJ appears to be correct – YEC can't be a pseudoscience if it is a religious belief and not claiming to be science. OJ further notes that creation science is the pseudoscience. The difficulty here is that yEc is used to refer to both the religious belief and the pseudoscience that is invoked to justify it, and so yEc can be argued to be a short-hand descriptor of a pseudoscience.
• As far as I can see, this leaves with a few options, on which I invite comment / discussion / alternatives:
  • 1A – leave with the present wording, pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism
  • 1B – adopt Jps' wording, promoting the pseudoscience of young Earth creationism
  • 1C – adopt what I see as OJ's implied wording, promoting the pseudoscience of creation science
  • 1D – or an alternative form of 1C, promoting creation science, a pseudoscience
  • 1E – try to include both CS and yEc, promoting young Earth creationism and the associated pseudoscience of creation science
  • 1F – a variation on 1E that seeks to avoid "pseudoscience" and "science" so close together, but is longer, such as promoting young Earth creationism and creation science, its associated pseudoscience.s (intelligent design and creation science)
  • 1G – recognise that pseudoscience is the vehicle used to promote yEc and thereby recast the entire last section of the sentence: with a particular focus on promoting young Earth creationism by rejecting those results of scientific investigation that do not conform to their literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and adopting pseudoscientific explanations from the creation science and intelligent design movements.
  • 1H – redraft of 1G to be more concise (showing full sentence): It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis with a young Earth, promoting pseudoscientific explanations from creationist and intelligent design perspectives and rejecting scientific investigations that contradict their creation narrative.
• My preference would be to re-draft along the lines of 1H (other comments on that below) or for 1F or 1E on the specific point, though I can accept any but 1A, which I find confusing. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "promotes pseudoscientific young Earth creationism", but think we may need a citation for that: will comment in a new section. Also note, as far as I know AiG is opposed to ID, though creation science tends to use the same arguments. . dave souza, talk 11:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, AiG is critical of ID as a movement.[1] No idea why intelligent design has been suddenly introduced here: it isn't mentioned in the article. StAnselm (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware of AiG's view on ID, thanks for pointing it out. I've struck out those mentions. EdChem (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this, but I like 1H the best. 1B is also pretty good. I like anything containing "pseudoscientific promotion" the least, because it sort of implies that the promotion itself is pseudoscientific, as apposed to promoting pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Given the strikethroughs, I prefer 1F as being clear and accurate. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• 1A is the best of bad options, so if these are the only choices, it's what I'll choose. Preferably, I support promotion of young Earth creationism (without the unnecessary/over-the-top "pseudoscience" wording, which just shoves it in the readers' faces--just click on the YEC article and you'll see it) as the best option. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• 1990'sguy, you or anyone else is free to suggest alternatives. Oldstone James has expressed a preference for 1H, though with an addition of a link to biblical inerrancy as the reason for rejection of science. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 2: Dangling modifier

• In the present form, it is unclear whether the clause following the "which" modifies AiG's advocacy or yEc.
• Plenty of options have been canvassed above, none has found consensus, but I'm happy to summarise them if that would be helpful.
• To them, I would add:
  • a rewording like 1H (above)
  • a simpler reordering such as It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and rejects those results of scientific investigation that are seen as contradicting the Genesis creation narrative by a pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism.
• My preference is 1H or the reordering. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• I support the reordering, except for everything after "Genesis creation narrative," which I think is an unnecessary addition to the sentence. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 3: Hatnote

A hat note was added:

{{short description|Fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization}}

Should this be returned or not?

• I have no strong opinion. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• All five words are true, but they really aren't defining. What is defining is the rejection of science and the promotion of creationism. I would prefer a description that includes those two defining characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's not really a hatnote, is it? It doesn't appear on the page. I don't actually know what these "short descriptions" are for. StAnselm (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• I would support the hatnote, especially if the description is simplified to "Christian apologetics organization" -- AiG may focus on Genesis 1-11, but it goes into depth on other Christian apologetics topics, including the historicity of the resurrection, evidence for the other 65 books for the Bible, abortion/same-sex marriage/other current social issues, etc. I would be OK strictly including "young earth creationist" as well, if necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Issue 4: Views and activities

In the Views and activities section, the following part:

Ham's message has had three central points. Firstly, teaching of evolution is an evil causing terrible damage to society, secondly, the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis give direct instruction on the creation of the universe and human social behavior, and thirdly that proper Christians must engage in a total conflict battling against atheistic humanism. Answers in Genesis promotes central young Earth creationist doctrines, including literal Creation of the Earth in six 24-hour days and effects of the global flood, but their main focus is acceptance of the authority of their particular literal reading of the Bible as a precondition for eternity in heaven. They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason, with those choosing the latter liable to dire eternal punishment.

was changed to (sections in green are the original, purple highlights the changes):

Ham's message has had three central points: that teaching of evolution is an evil causing damage to society; that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis give a precise description of the process of creation of the universe and provide direct instruction on the organization of society; and that proper Christians must engage in a total conflict battling against atheistic humanism. Answers in Genesis promotes central young Earth creationist doctrines, including literal Creation of the Earth in six 24-hour days and effects of the global flood, but their main focus is acceptance of the authority of their particular literal reading of the Bible as a precondition for eternity in heaven. They present this as a choice between the word of God and human reason, particularly the teaching of evolution which they regard as evil.

Later in the same section, the sentence:

Since their beliefs reject natural causes and events in scientific explanations of nature and the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural, creation science is considered to be a religion by the National Academy of Sciences.

has been modified to insert the word "many" after "their beliefs reject"

• Most of these changes seem clear improvements to me. There was a debate above on word of God / human reason that is not reflected in these before-and-after snippets. On the addition of "many", do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins, or only some of them? Adding "many" implies to me that some natural causes / events in universal origins are accepted, and I'm not sure that that is true. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins, or only some of them?", they accept natural causes in the same way that an atheist scientist accepts the bible as a science book -- if the Bible happens to say something that is exactly the same as what science says, in that one case the atheist scientist will agree that that part of the Bible is literally true. Likewise with AiG. AiG is clear about this:

"If a scientific model does not contradict the Bible, then we should be excited to see what new insights we can gain about the Creator and His workings. As with the question of origins, we must interpret the data through the lens of biblical revelation."[2]

To AiG, a natural cause outside of God simply does not exist. Let's take Gravity as an example. A scientist will tell you that gravity is a purely natural phenomena even as he tells you that we don't always understand the details (see quantum gravity). But AiG rejects the idea that gravity is a purely natural phenomena. Here is what they says the underlying cause of gravity is:

"Two Bible references are helpful in considering the nature of gravity and physical science in general. First, Colossians 1:17 explains that Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist. The Greek verb for consist (sunistao) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together. Extrabiblical Greek use of this word pictures a container holding water within itself. The word is used in Colossians in the perfect tense, which normally implies a present continuing state arising from a completed past action. One physical mechanism used is obviously gravity, established by the Creator and still maintained without flaw today. Consider the alternative; if gravity ceased for one moment, instant chaos surely would result. All heavenly objects, including the earth, moon and stars, would no longer hold together. Everything would immediately disintegrate into small fragments."

"A second reference, Hebrews 1:3, declares that Christ upholds all things by the word of His power. Uphold (phero) again describes the sustaining or maintaining of all things, including gravity. The word uphold in this verse means much more than simply supporting a weight. It includes control of all the ongoing motions and changes within the universe. This infinite task is managed by the Lord’s almighty Word, whereby the universe itself was first called into being. Gravity, the ‘mystery force’, which is poorly understood after nearly four centuries of research, is one of the manifestations of this awesome divine upholding.""[3]

AiG even directly addresses the question of whether they believe that the root cause of everything is God or whether they believe that the root cause of everything is natural laws:

"Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law."[4]

So the answer to the question "do their beliefs reject all natural causes and events in favour of the supernatural when it comes to universal origins" is "Yes. They do. And they are proud of it." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting example of intelligent falling. There seems to be a lot of evidence that AiG reject science in favour or revelation, and don't much bother to claim that what they propose is scientific. Think there are instances where they make pseudoscientific claims, but we need to be clearer about sources for that. . . . dave souza, talk 11:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: I think I have misread a diff. I thought that the word "many" had be re-added, and in doing so, the text implies that some naturalistic explanations are accepted by AiG... but on looking again, I think I have it backwards. Removing the word "many", as has been done, seems correct to me. I still think the other changes are improvements in a grammatical / linguistic sense. Dave souza's point below is interesting and needs careful consideration, too. EdChem (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• I support all these changes by Oldstone James, and I think the wording is an improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)