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, 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]
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 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 [3] [4]. 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 [5] or the Journal of Creation [6] 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. [7]
[edit] 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 [8]).
[edit] Cosmological views
Answers in Genesis believes that all stars and planetary bodies, including the Earth, were formed around 6,000 years ago.[11] They reject the Big Bang and inflationary theories of cosmology,[12] because they contradict AiG's interpretation of the text of the Bible.[13]
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[14] and prefers a model proposed by creationist physicist Russell Humphreys.[15] Supporters, mostly other Young Earth creationists, claim that it uses the theory of relativity to explain how billions of years could have passed in space while only a single day passed on Earth. This creationist cosmology requires that the Milky Way lie near the center of the universe, an idea which AiG believes is supported by claims of quantized redshifts.[16] This idea 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.[17]
AiG compares creationists' distant starlight problem with the "horizon problem" of the Big Bang theory,[18] which prompted mainstream physicists to accept inflationary theory as a solution.[19]
[edit] Morality and social issues
[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 theory of creation will only result in it being distorted by those who don't believe in it.[20] 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".[21] 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.[22]
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 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 (about the U.S. national average), only 27% did so at the time the survey was taken.[23]
[edit] Life issues
Answers in Genesis takes a strong pro-life stance on abortion because they regard individual life as beginning at fertilization.[24] 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,[25] except to save the life of the mother.[26] They are also strongly opposed to euthanasia,[27] and embryonic stem cell research, but support somatic/adult stem cell research which does not require the destruction of fetuses.[28]
[edit] Homosexuality
Answers in Genesis considers marriage to consist of one man and one woman for life,[29] based on Genesis 1:27[30] and Genesis 2:24,[31] which Jesus cited in Matthew 19:3-6[32] and Mark 10:5-9.[33] In claiming that homosexuality is a sin, Answers in Genesis has cited writings by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27[34] and 1 Corinthians 6:9[35] 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.[36] 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."[37]
[edit] Evolution and race
AiG asserts that belief in evolutionary theory contributes to eugenics and racial theories[38] which supported the policies of Nazi Germany[39] in its prosecution of the Holocaust[40], as well as the evils of Soviet Communism[41] under Stalin. To support these views, Answers in Genesis cites[42] the 1914 textbook Hunter's Civic Biology[43], used in the Scopes Trial, which actively promotes views which are now thought of as racist or eugenic. AiG does not point out that support for eugenics fell out of scientific favor, as it did out of popular favor, during the 1930's and has not been either accepted or promoted by mainstream biologists since then.[44]
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.) misinterprets the Bible's intent, and they quote Jesus' command to love your enemies.[45]
[edit] Culture and media
Answers in Genesis has accused Hollywood of using "subtle tactics" to slip in "evolutionary content".[46] Movies and television programs they have criticized for doing this include The Munsters, Lilo & Stitch, Bugs Bunny cartoons, Fantasia, and Finding Nemo.[47]
[edit] 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.[48]
The website of WCPO TV[49] has reported that in 2003, Answers in Genesis-US "did not meet all of the Better Business Bureau's accountability standards" (emphasis in original).[50] 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."[50] Answers in Genesis-US is now listed as meeting each of the Better Business Bureau's 19 standards for charitable accountability.[51]
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.[52]
[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."[53]
Amongst its various displays and exhibits, the museum is being designed to include life-size and even animatronic (animated and motion-sensitive) dinosaurs, large movie screens showing a young-earth history of the world, a technologically superior planetarium depicting creationist cosmologies and creationist interpretations of quantum physics, and a life-size model of Noah's Ark housing a conference center and hotel rooms. Model dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden will also be depicted.[54]
The projected cost of the building, interior designs, and exhibits is around US $25 million (although recent expansion projects prior to opening has pushed the price tag to around $27 million). As of October 31, 2006, $23.8 million has been raised in donations and the museum is expected to open in the summer of 2007.[55] Answers in Genesis' success in raising donations for the museum was contrasted with the failure of the American Museum of Natural History to find corporate sponsorship for their exhibit on the life of Charles Darwin, because, according to the Daily Telegraph, "American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution."[56]
[edit] Awards
National Religious Broadcasters awarded Answers in Genesis (Hebron, KY) their Best Ministry Website award in 2006.[57]
[edit] Criticism
No Answers in Genesis [9] 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[58] staff engaged in an online debate [10] 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"[59] As of writing, AiG's list contains 186 people claiming a PhD-level qualification, of which only around seventy are in fields related to biology. The remainder claim PhD's in fields as diverse as plastic surgery, linguistics, psychiatry, mechanical engineering, dentistry and other fields unrelated to evolutionary biology. In response to such lists, the (US) National Center for Science Education instigated Project Steve[11] (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 such restrictive entry criteria as these will be significantly larger than any similar unrestricted list of PhD's who accept creationism. As of the April 7, 2007, AiG's list contains 186 entries, while the NCSE's list contains 786.
AiG asserts that Stalin's acceptance of Darwinian Evolution directly caused "oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder"[12], whereas in truth, Stalin actually rejected Darwin's theory on evolution in favor of the competing theory of Lamarckian evolution. [13] [14]
[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,[60] 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 Devils 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,[61] 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?[62] According to their account, the raw footage shows that Dawkins, who had previously been informed of the interviewer's creationist sympathies, after pausing for a long time asked the recording company that did the video to stop 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.
[edit] Spontaneous generation, probability and natural selection
Answers in Genesis' is in agreement with modern evolutionary scientists that Darwinian evolution is not a theory of how life began but rather a theory of the variability in life through natural processes. While evolutionary scientists admit that they do not fully understand how the first life formed,[63] they do not agree with the Answers in Genesis promotion of baraminology to explain the origin of life based on the description in Genesis 1 to reproduce “after their kind”.[64] This view proposes 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 describes both increases and decreases of genetic information over time.
Answers in Genesis has written a number of articles about natural selection.[65] 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.[66] The mainstream scientific community holds that mechanisms such as gene duplication and polyploidy could provide new information and that duplicate genes can rapidly mutate, sometimes changing their function. Answers in Genesis denies that copying genes can provide new, usable information, arguing that such polyploid genetic information is merely an additional copy of the already present information.[67] However, examples of such information being introduced to an organism's genome have been claimed to have been observed, such as in the nylon-eating bacteria, a strain of Flavobacterium that evolved to create new enzymes to digest nylon, a polymer that wasn't invented until 1935[68][69][70]Scientists 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. Different genes and different enzymes evolved which did exactly the same job.[71] 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. [72]
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 allege 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,[73] similar to estimates of some other scientists, such as microbiologist Dr. Michael Denton[74], Harold Morowitz, Sir Frederick Hoyle, and Michael Hart. AIG believes that this event is an outstandingly improbable event, which would appear to require a larger explanation than 'mere' chance.
Probability arguments that require the abiogenesis of a cell are criticized by evolutionists 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 the first cell too. They claim that selection of self replicating macromolecules, such as RNA,[75][76] cumulate small probabilities and that creationist statistical analysis does not account for the true possibilities of life evolving to become a cell.
[edit] References
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0521.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0914search_engine.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/curl.asp?cid=14882
- ^ http://www.creationontheweb.com/creation
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp
- ^ https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/feedback/2004/1126.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0610.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0610.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/editorial.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#1
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
- ^ http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html
- ^ https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0107ed_bill.asp
- ^ https://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0720linking.asp
- ^ 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". Jan. 31, 2006
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/reviews/beckwith.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative12feb2001.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/feedback/2005/0222.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/humanlife.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/stem_cells.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1101ankerberg_response.asp
- ^ Genesis 1:27
- ^ Genesis 2:24
- ^ Matthew 19:3-6
- ^ Mark 10:5-9
- ^ Romans 1:26-27
- ^ 1COR 6:9
- ^ Leviticus 20:13
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/0206.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/communism.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0711scopes.asp
- ^ http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt192.htm
- ^ http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-supp/text/thurtle.html
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part1.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/donate/
- ^ http://www.wcpo.com/
- ^ a b http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/charitycheck.html
- ^ http://search.cincinnati.bbb.org/default3.asp?strTheForm=2&ID=1&strBCode=02920000&ComID=0292000005001292
- ^ Ministry Watch full report on Answers in Genesis
- ^ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810774805.html
- ^ http://answersingenesis.org/museum/docs2005/0523dinosaurs.asp
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1946370,00.html
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/20/wdarwin20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/20/ixportal.html
- ^ http://content.nrb.org/press/2006awards.htm
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0615debate.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp
- ^ http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creationistdeceptionexposed.htm
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp
- ^ http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
- ^ [1]
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp#box
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp
- ^ * Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., No stop codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon oligomer degradation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:3780–3784, 1992
- Susumu Ohno, Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984
- ^ Claim CB101_2 and claim CB102 in the Talk Origins Archive
- ^ Mexicans for Science and Reason article about nylon eating bacteria
- ^ * IRFAN D. PRIJAMBADA, SEIJI NEGORO, TETSUYA YOMO, AND ITARU URABE, Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution PDF, APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY, May 1995
- ^ [2]
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp
- ^ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler Publishers, Inc., 1986), p. 323.
- ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9110984&dopt=Abstract
- ^ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/Quotes/cairns-smith_RNA.asp
[edit] External links
[edit] Official
[edit] Similar organizations
- Creation Ministries website Comprised of former Answers in Genesis offices
- Institute for Creation Research
- The Creation Research Society
[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
- Barry Yeoman. "Creation Nation", The Independent Weekly
- CMI's view on the schism
- [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Answers_in_Genesis
- [15]Open forum debate of YEC vs OEC: latest info 2007
