Answers in Genesis schism: U.S. group goes solo
This explains why an article critical of bad creationist arguments (and specifically Kent Hovind) disappeared from the Answers in Genesis site, but is found on the new Creation Ministries International site. (UPDATE (March 6, 2006): This statement was not quite accurate, but the linked-to page gets it right. The article listing arguments not to use is still present on the Answers in Genesis site, but it no longer links to the separate "maintaining creationist integrity" page and response to Kent Hovind which is present on the Creation Ministries International site.)
Wieland's group has made a point of publishing material critical of bad creationist arguments, on its website and in its technical journal. Ken Ham, on the other hand, has made a point of publishing and presenting bad creationist arguments.
The U.S. group, known for spending millions on a creationist museum, has interesting Form 990s filed with the IRS. Some highlights from 2003 and 2004:
Revenue: $9,016,228 (2003), $10,423,222 (2004).
Expenses: $6,894,456 (2003), $8,320,926 (2004).
Assets: $10,778,086 (2003), $17,368,759 (2004).
Liabilities: $1,693,035 (2003), $6,086,610 (2004).
Officer/Director compensation: $313,960 (2003), $926,837 (2004).
Other salaries/wages: $2,938,288 (2003), $2,852,351 (2004).
Pension plan contributions: $87,819 (2003), $0 (2004).
Other employee benefits: $317,802 (2003), $399,482 (2004).
Payroll taxes: $223,636 (2003), $307,267 (2004).
Employees with salaries over $50,000:
Kevin Markesbery, Construction Manager, $87,000 plus $8,778 to benefit plans/deferred income and $1,375 expense account (2003). $88,678 plus $6,850 to benefit plans, $4,076 expense account (2004).
John Pence, Dir. of Planned Giving/Legal Counsel, $87,539 plus $7,728 to benefit plans/deferred income (2003). (Became a director in 2004, see below).
Patrick Marsh, Director, $73,713 plus $5,202 to benefit plans (2004).
James Hatton, Controller, $70,763 plus $8,609 to benefit plans/deferred income.
Kathy Ellis, Dir. Administration, $68,519 plus $7,078 to benefit plans/deferred income.
Mark Looy, VP Ministry Relations, $68,417 plus $8,460 to benefit plans/deferred income and $2,232 expense account. (Became a director in 2004, see below.)
Tony Ramsek, Systems Mgr., $62,720 plus $6,821 to benefit plans (2004).
Dan Zordel, Director, $57,724 plus $6,816 to benefit plans and $839 expense account (2004).
Charles Tilton, Director, $56,828 plus $3,109 to benefit plans and $112 expense account (2004).
Directors:
Carl Wieland, Board Member, $0 (2003).
Ken Ham, President, $125,739 salary, $11,033 benefits, $44,478 expenses (2003). $121,764 salary, $6,887 benefits, $63,808 expenses (2004).
Bill Wise, CFO, $121,418 salary, $8,845 benefits, $2,535 expenses (2003).
John Pence, General Counsel, $93,115 salary, $3,148 benefits (2004).
Kathy Ellis, Vice President, $86,068 salary, $5,261 benefits (2004).
Mark Looy, Vice President, $85,615 salary, $6,820 benefits, $3,518 expenses (2004).
James Hatton, CFO, $81,000 salary, $6,831 benefits (2004).
Mike Zovath, VP, $74,798 salary, $8,707 benefits, $2,267 expenses (2003). $90,201 salary, $6,830 benefits, $1,115 expenses (2004).
Brandon Vallorani, $74,432 salary, $8,313 benefits, $1,368 expenses (2003). COO, $90,344 salary, $6,223 benefits, $2,316 expenses (2004).
Don Landis, Chairman, $0 (2003). $0 (2004).
Dan Chin, Board Member, $0 (2003). $0 (2004).
Mark Jackson, Board Member, $0 (2003). $0 (2004).
Carl Kerby, Board Member, $6,538 salary (20hrs/week), $1,650 benefits, $22,462 expenses (2003). Vice President, $65,112 salary, $4,225 benefits, $27,240 expenses (2004).
Dan Manthei, Board Member, $0 (2003). $0 (2004).
Peter Strong, Board Member, $0 (2003).
Greg Peacock, Board Member, $0 (2003). $0 (2004).
Paul Salmon, Board Member, $0 (2003).
David Denner, Board Member, $0 (2004).
Dale Mason, Vice President, $115,621 salary, $4,828 benefits (2004).
John Thallon, Board Member, $0 (2004).
Tim Dudley, Board Member, $0 (2004).
They paid their top building contractors in 2003:
plumbing and HVAC: $829,979
concrete: $310,252
steel erection: $279,428
building electric: $249,450
concrete foundations: $195,872
In 2003 they sold or gave away several old computers, and gave a 2002 Toyota Camry to CFO Bill Wise (who also got a free Compaq laptop).
The full AiG 2004 Form 990 may be found here (PDF).
Ken Ham earns a pretty good salary for someone who spouts misrepresentations of and about evolution for a living and resides in a state where the median household income in 2002-2003 was $37,270.
Answers in Genesis of Kentucky's unwillingness to undergo even the peer review of fellow creationist organizations indicates to me a lack of ethics and integrity.
UPDATE: I didn't explicitly note above that this schism must have actually taken place back in 2005, since Carl Wieland and the other Australians (Greg Peacock and Paul Salmon) disappeared from the AiG Kentucky board in the 2004 Form 990 (signed on August 10, 2005, apparently an update since the original was due by May 15). Also of note is that John Thallon, an Australian who helped lose the Creation Science Foundation thousands of dollars in a bogus investment (he was also a victim, not a party to the fraud--see the "Loss of Funds" section of my article "How Not To Argue With Creationists"), has moved to Kentucky and is on the board as of 2004.
One other thing worthy of note is that as Answers in Genesis of Kentucky has grown, it has pulled support away from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which Henry Morris' son John Morris has never really had his heart in running. The ICR's 2004 revenue was $4,341,000, with expenses of $4,231,885. They had assets of $5,628,352 and liabilities of $537,283--so they're not exactly hurting, but they're not doing AiG-sized business, either. (2004 Form 990 for the ICR is here (PDF).) It wouldn't surprise me if AiG ultimately completely displaced (or perhaps acquired) the ICR.
Posts
25 comments:
It's not a Ken Ham quote. It's a quote from a brochure mailed by the newly-named Australian group, Creation Ministries International.
A fuller quote:
The AiG website was developed in the US and hosted there. It was largely dependent for its intellectual content on the scientists and
thinkers in the parent corporation, in particular such as Dr Don Batten,
Dr Jonathan Sarfati, and Dr Carl Wieland. These and other writers were heavily contributing to the site until late 2005/early 2006, when the US ministry withdrew themselves from the international ministry group (with the exception of the UK) with an expressed desire to operate autonomously, without e.g. website content being subject to an international representative system of checks/balances/peer review involving all the other offices bearing the same 'brand name'.
At that time, in the midst of discussions about this and other differences in operating philosophy (not involving the statement of
faith or similar), the Australian office was formally invited to form
its own website. This required a new name to avoid confusion.
The four national ministries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) which were committed to continuing their focus and operational ^Qteam^R philosophy, and to continuing to forge and strengthen a representative international ministry alliance structure (based on Proverbs 11:14), then rebranded as Creation Ministries International (CMI).
My description was not quite accurate, but the facts are accurate at the source I linked to--it's the "maintaining creationist integrity" page which has disappeared from the AiG site (but is on the CMI site).
BTW, I've added an update in the post to correct the error.
peddler8111 apparently created a new Blogger account just to post this comment, with a (currently nonexistent) blog titled "Are Evolutionist's Honest?"
Since I've corrected my mistake, the answer for this advocate of evolution is yes--a contrast to folks like Ham who continues to utter the same falsehoods over and over even after being corrected. If you've ever looked at his book _The Lie: Evolution_, you know it is one of the worst, most dishonest creationist books out there.
Some good reasoning, but not quite on the mark. The story has been published here: www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4767
re: the remark that Ken Ham doesn't want to be accountable to anyone, well, I believe he knows exactly to whom he is accountable, and that "Whom" is the only one we will all be accountable when we stand before Him on That Day. The ones who don't want to be accountable to anyone, incl. God, are all the atheist evolutionist humanist anti-God and -Christ people. I'm so heartbroken for everyone of them, who will, unless they repent and open their "eyes" and hearts to their Creator, and accept, by faith, the Loving Gift of forgiveness and Eternal Life, bought for them with the blood of His own Son, Jesus Christ, on that Roman cross of torture and death. They have a day of reckoning ahead, believe it or not. "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'."
Having reviewed the Creation/Evolution debate for some time now it has left me with one overall impression. For me the debate is marked by an obvious propensity on the part of evolutionists to go for the man and not the ball. The issue touches on and exposes the very deepest, most visceral part of who we are.
Given the nature of the dispute I find it strange to see intelligent men and women slugging it out with an almost inane devotion to,and total belief in, the thrust and parry of debate as if they can with the power of words alone, argue God into or out of existence.
The fact is that atheists cannot use 'science' to prove anything with regard to the existence or non existence of God. They cannot progress, with anything 'known' to mankind beyond the inexplicable existence of the first matter.
They do not have an identity for the First Cause. Those who believe in God simply are stating that the First Cause is God the Creator.
I have heard theevolutionists banging on in the public sector wothout challenge for years. I have never swallowed it. It is, for all the hype, an hypothesis that only works in the minds of men who want to believe in it. The more I hear them present their arguements and diatribes,the more convinced I am that the reasons that people advocate and promote evolution are nothing to do with fact or truth. It is simply carried by the need for a backdrop onto which they can paint their world view.
For Christians this means that they can make Christ change to fit their own theology. To say that any Christian who believes totally in a literal understanding of the Bible should be regarded as a crank or an enemy of Christ is to completely deny the very foundational nature of Christ Himself. He came to bring the fulfilment of the Law and the prophets not to render them irrelevant. He lived as an Torah observant Jewish man. Not a Greek philosopher.
His words demonstrated that He believed entirely in the scriptures as historical fact. As the disciple John wrote; In the beginning was the word,
and later that Jesus IS the word.
When He was challenged by Satan in the desert Jesus remained true to Himself as the Living Word. Satan used twisted versions of scripture to attack Him. In response Jesus recited the uncorrupted,true meaning of scripture to destroy the subtle twisting lies that were given to tempt Him.
For Christians I believe the Evolution debate galvanizes us into showing just how much or how little we are prepared to let Jesus tell us who HE is. So many are so busy trying to reinvent the One who is unchanging that they end up creating someone almost entirely of their own invention.
For atheists the basis of their stance is pretty much the same only in their case the god they want is entirely materialistic.
In the end what richard koury says is the ultimate reply to the whole arguement. Mankind can either face up to it or not. I my part I would hate to be the one to stand before the Lord and try to explain why I thought the Bible is mostly and excercise in political spin or man made allegorical rhetoric.
He has said to us clearly. If we do not know Him, He will not know us.
They do not have an identity for the First Cause. Those who believe in God simply are stating that the First Cause is God the Creator.
Sorry. Wrong on two counts. Thanks for playing.
1) If the "first cause" is "God the creator" then what caused God? Nothing? How can something not have a cause?
2) Christians/Jews/Muslims who make the deeply unsatisfying and generally incoherent claim above are also saying a lot more than "simply" that God was the "first cause."
They then make an additional enormous logical leap with "first cause"="God of Abraham" and expect everyone to be so dazzled by the skill and slight-of-hand they exhibit while making their first (absurd) argument that they don't notice this (equally assinine) second argument, which, as you can see from your own comment, is usually not explicitly stated.
Anonymous: "For me the debate is marked by an obvious propensity on the part of evolutionists to go for the man and not the ball."
Where on earth are you going for your information about evolution, then? Perhaps you should take a look at www.talkorigins.org, or works actually published in fields relating to evolution.
If you look only at the points of clash (say, if you get all of your information from blogs), you're definitely going to see exasperated evolutionists who are tired of refuting the same bad arguments over and over, and concluding that there must be something wrong with the people who make them and refuse to engage with the evidence. (Though I'm not sure why you fail to see ad hominems and other fallacious arguments from the creationists!)
Evolution has an enormous and growing amount of evidential support published in thousands of journals. Creationism's pretty much got nothing.
--"Evolution has an enormous and growing amount of evidential support published in thousands of journals. Creationism's pretty much got nothing."--
And how often do these "journals" need to be revised as man increases his knowledge of the world around him? Perhaps you would care to elaborate on how symmetry evolved? Or tell us why the evolutionists are having such a hard time finding all of the missing links in the fossil record? Or maybe you can take a minute to explain the fundamental inaccuracies inherent in the carbon-dating method?
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
--1 Corinthians (1:18-25)
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Hmmmm...
That explains a lot, actually.
citrite: You answered your own question about journal revisions--we're always learning more and filling in additional details, improving accuracy, and correcting mistakes. (Religion, by contrast, enshrines its mistakes and refuses to correct them.)
If you really want to understand symmetry in biological organisms, I suggest you try reading about it--your question would be better asked at the Pharyngula blog.
Your claim that "the evolutionists are having such a hard time finding all of the missing links in the fossil record" is bogus (unless you really mean "all," and argue that every transitional form found results in a gap on either side to be filled). You're in the position of having to refuse to look at the fossil evidence for the human lineage, for whale and horse transitions, for reptile to mammal, and so on.
And your reference to "fundamental inaccuracies inherent in the carbon-dating method" shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Radiocarbon dating is extremely accurate and has been successfully validated against tree-ring data for more than 10,000 years of history, as even the Institute for Creation Research admits. It is not a method used to date the earth or anything more than a few tens of thousands of years old. For that, other radiometric methods are used, and they can be used to calibrate each other; isochron methods provide an internal self-check of accuracy. If you reject that, you're not only rejecting modern biology, you're rejecting modern physics.
You're a believer in nonsense. Don't try to pass it off as science or somehow better supported than science, because it's not.
These flowcharts for science and faith make explicit the difference that citrite was pointing out and trying to argue is an advantage of faith.
I think he has his virtues and vices confused.
Einzige said...
>"They do not have an identity for the First Cause. Those who believe in God simply are stating that the First Cause is God the Creator."
"Sorry. Wrong on two counts. Thanks for playing.
1) If the "first cause" is "God the creator" then what caused God? Nothing? How can something not have a cause?"
Sorry, Einzige, wrong. We are ourselves finite beings in a finite universe. We believe that everything must have a cause that is outside of that thing and greater than that thing, i.e., capable of bring that thing into existance.
Therefore, it is logically required that behind everything that is finite must be a cause that is greater and capable of bringing everything finite into existance.
This, therefore, is the *infinite*. Being, of its nature infinite, it is not contained within the finite or limited by the finite. Time, being a finite limit on us, is not limiting on the infinite First Cause.
Obviously, time must have come into existance through One who is outside of time. Meet God, the Infinite, who existing before and outside of time, has no beginning and no end.
Whilst you say that everything finite must have come from nothing, my position is that everything finite has come from God the infinite, the All-in-All.
According to the law of causality, things that have a beginning need a cause, and the universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1), therefore it must have had a cause, a Creator.
Space, matter, and time are inextricably bound up with each other. For example the famous equation e = mc^2 links time (c is a speed, and any speed is a distance per a unit of time) and matter. Thus time as we experience it is something intrinsic to this physical universe.
But God the Creator already existed independent of the physical universe He created (Colossians 1:17) and His existence is not limited to the universe (2 Chronicles 2:6; 6:18). We can think of this realm as eternity. There is no reason to suppose that the laws of physics (thermodynamics, causality, etc.) have any relevance outside of this universe, in eternity. God is eternal, without beginning, and not subject to the laws of the physical universe He created. God therefore needs no cause.
Dariux, your presuppositionalism is boring and not worth discussing. Come back when you're no longer assuming what it is you're arguing for.
hermit_au:
We believe that everything must have a cause that is outside of that thing and greater than that thing, i.e., capable of bring that thing into existance.
Speak for yourself. Plenty of things have causes that are not "greater" (a vague word, at best) than themselves. I'm sure you've heard the expression, "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost"?
You and I were both "caused" by the joining of two microscopic haploid cells, for example.
So, I reject this premise, which causes the remainder of your argument's shaky edifice to crumble.
This, therefore, is the *infinite*.
Do you have any evidence for this infinite being, aside from your faulty logic?
Either there was a first cause or there was not. If there was a first cause then how do what other properties this "thing" possessed, beyond the property of its being the first cause? Why is it important to call it "God"? What does that do for you?
Oops, missed a couple words toward the end: "...then how do you know what other properties..."
Everyone starts with presuppositions Einzige, even you.
Typical secular presuppositions include materialism (i.e. no God, no supernatural) and uniformitarianism. If you want to demonstrate that you are not a close-minded dogmatist blindly committed to your presuppositions, then try giving a considered substantive answer to this hypothetical question: If the world was created and there was a global flood, then what evidence would you expect to see?
Dariux,
You're the one making the claim (that the Bible is true and, further, is a source of scientific truths), so you have the burden of proof.
If I were to claim that I have a leprauchan and one of the parts of my "proof" for it was, "I have a leprauchan," then you would (rightly) call "foul" - would you not? I wouldn't then get to ask you, "But what if I did have a leprauchan? What evidence would you expect to see?"
Given that this discussion is inappropriate for the topic at hand, let me suggest that you take your arguments over to the discussion forum at infidels.org.
You'll find plenty of people there willing to debate you.
Dariux:
Go talk to a geologist about what evidence for flooding looks like, and whether there is any evidence for a global flood. There isn't.
This is really not the place for an extended discussion of the details of young-earth creationism--this is a blog post about the split between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. Take it to the talk.origins newsgroup or, as Einzige suggested, the Internet Infidels discussion boards, where there is a Creation/Evolution debate forum.
Einzige,
Can a presupposition be observed in the theory of evolution?
In other words can a leap of faith or a leap in logic be observed in the theory of evolution?
If yes, why are you not allowing Dariux the same charity?
I am a layman and this is one of the reasons I find it difficult to trust evolusionists...
Mr. TB,
It may be true that presuppositions form the basis for any system of knowledge (e.g., how can you justify rational thought without an appeal to rationality?), but there is a distinct difference in the case of Biblical presuppositionalism versus evolutionary theory.
Unlike the Biblical presuppositionalists and their Bible, the evolutionary biologist doesn't start with the premise "Evolution is true" and then go from there.
As Jim and I have said before, this is a discussion best moved to other, more appropriate fora.
[Einzige said:
Unlike the Biblical presuppositionalists and their Bible, the evolutionary biologist doesn't start with the premise "Evolution is true" and then go from there.]
OH PLEASE!!! Get REAL!!! Evolutionsts theories and arguments are FULLLLLLL of presuppositions, and YES,it most certainly DOES start with that exact belief, or at least that "there is no god". Every piece of evidence that you look at, is the EXACT same piece of evidence that creation scientists see and examine, and we use just as real and accurate "science" as you do. However, we both come to completely different conclusions, and the reason for that is that we both start with different FAITHS, and different presuppositions. That's right, evolution is a FAITH, just as much as christianity, even though you don't like to admit it. It requires a belief in something which HAS to be assumed or presupposed. There is MUCH evidence which STRONGLY favors creation, a flood, etc, and there is evidence which would appear to favor evolution, at least on the surface, and there is evidence which can be equally well explained by EITHER, but each side ALWAYS interprets it based on his own presuppositions. You are a blind fool if you cannot see this and have deceived your own self, as the Bible states.
One TINY example, contrary to what you attempted to persuade us of, there are HUGE problems with carbon dating, as well as every other form of dating, (even when they are used to "calibrate each other" Nothing like taking one flawed method to validate another one. Kinda like the blind leading the blind), and every one of those methods ABSOLUTELY, BY DEFINTION requires MANY presuppostitions, in and of themselves. To deny this would prove what little you actually understand about the science involved. However, when one examines the experiments and tests that have been done for decades with things such as carbon dating, more often than not they come up with MANY DIFFERENT dates, and they often keep testing until they find a date that matches, ...... wait for it, ...... THEIR PRESUPPOSITIONS!!!!! Their final results become biased by their foundational beliefs. If they were dating something that in their evolutionary viewpoint they "knew" was very old, and they got a range of dates, guess whihc one would get published??? Are you so naive you have not figured this out? And guess how many pieces of evidence they come across that supports creation and which hurts their own theories that "disappear" and never get published or get swept under the carpet.
THey continuously and regularly "date" things which are KNOWN to be modern and recent, as being very old. OOPS, well, we'll just discard that one and try again. Aaaahhhh, there's one that looks more like what we expected, that must be the RIGHT one!
WAKE UP!!!
Look at the many many PROVEN hoaxes and erroneous evidences that STILL exist in museums and in textbooks, LONG AFTER they are proven and admitted to be wrong, and why do you suppose that is??? Oh, I'm sure It's just because they are busy and haven't had time to get it out yet. Yeah, right!! If it were anything that went AGAINST their viewpoint, they would be up in arms about it and demand that it be corrected.
No, dating methods are NOT consistent or reliable as they have duped you into believing, and if they do not get an answer/result they like initially when dating something, they will explain it away or presume some kind of error and keep trying till they get an answer that agrees with what they actually "knew" or expected all along. Hardly what one would call "letting the evidence speak for itself". No, far from. Any discussion or study of origins and dating methods and such, always involves biases and presuppositions. We as christians are at least open and honest about it, and admit it forthrightly. Evolutionists on the other hand, try to hide behind some facade of "scientific objectivity", and deny the fact that they too follow a religion, the religion of humanISM and atheISM and evolutionISM. Be honest with yourselves and everyone else, and call it what it is.
[Einzige said: As Jim and I have said before, this is a discussion best moved to other, more appropriate fora.]
Oh, but of course! When your brain starts to hurt and you come face to face with the reality of your own ignorance, you're quick to dodge the subject and arrogantly pass it off as "not appropriate" for this forum.
Yeah, whatever. Go bury your head in the sand. You will be judged by your own willing ignorance one day. And at the name of Jesus, EVERY KNEE will bow, even yours.
Have a nice life, one day soon you
will remember the time you wasted defending such utter nonsense and wish for all eternity you had been willing to truly SEE the truth instead of spending so much tiime and effort trying to hide from it.
"OH PLEASE!!! Get REAL!!! Evolutionsts theories and arguments are FULLLLLLL of presuppositions, and YES,it most certainly DOES start with that exact belief, or at least that 'there is no god'. Every piece of evidence that you look at, is the EXACT same piece of evidence that creation scientists see and examine, and we use just as real and accurate "science" as you do."
You're delusional--your claim is at odds with the fact that most Christians in the world have no problem with evolution, and many evolutionary scientists are Christians. Evolutionary biology no more starts with the assumption that there is no God than auto mechanics start with the assumption that there is no God by searching for mechanical causes of failures.
I suspect that you cannot even accurately describe the most basic elements of the theory of evolution, let alone the nonexistent scientific theory of creationism. I challenge you to make your way over to the IIDB Creation/Evolution discussion forum (www.iidb.org) and prove me wrong.
If you post further off-topic crap in the comments here, it will be deleted, with the exception of a pointer to your post at IIDB demonstrating that you have a basic understanding of evolution.
Jim, Einzige and "friends",
Everyone knows that Sean Connery is the best James Bond of them all. If you disagree, you're wrong because I said so and that's all the reason that anyone should need. Oh, wait, that's off-topic, too.
You're probably aware of this, but if not, check out PBS's latest NOVA special: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/.
I can only hope that they will do a nice job pointing out much of the unreason with the seemingly defunct ID movement that many of your blog comment posters, sadly, seem to share.
I apologize for the off-topic post, but this exchange seemed a good place for it.
Joe
Uh, sorry, but David Niven was the greatest James Bond of them all.
Post a Comment