The market for creationism

Todd Wood of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College has gotten around to doing what I haven't done, updating my analysis of the market for creationism that I did in early 2007.  He confirms some of the trends I noted, such as that the market for creationism has been growing and is dominated by Answers in Genesis.  His update goes further, and includes a comparison to the National Center for Science Education, noting that he market for criticism of creationism has grown along with the market for creationism.  He also points out that the groups involved got a boost revenue in 2005 during the Dover trial, that the AiG split from Creation Ministries International doesn't appear to have hurt AiG, and that "Godquest," formerly known as Creation Science Evangelism, the Hovind organization, is the #3 creationist organization for revenue behind AiG and the Institute for Creation Research.

Wood reports the following numbers for recent years:

2003:
$14.6 million market
AIG: 61.6%
ICR: 30.6%
*CEM: 4.2%
*CRS: 1.7%
*CM: 1.6%
*CSC: 0.4%

2004:
$15.8 million market
AIG: 65.7%
ICR: 26.8%
CEM: 3.1%
CRS: 2.0%
CM: 1.9%
CSC: 0.4%

2005: **
$10.8 million market
AIG: 50.4%
ICR: 40.3%
CEM: 5.1%
CRS: 1.0%
CM: 2.5%
CSC: 0.6%

2006:
$21.3 million market
AIG: 64.1%
ICR: 30.9%
CEM: 2.2%
CRS: 1.1%
CM: 1.3%
CSC: 0.3%

2007:
$25.6 million market
AIG: 69.5%
ICR: 27.6%
CEM: no data
CRS: 1.2%
CM: 1.1%
CSC: 0.3%
CMI: 0.3%

2008:
$33.3 million market
AIG: 68.2%
ICR: 26.2%
CEM: no data
Godquest: 2.8%
CRS: 0.7%
CM: 1.0%
CSC: 0.2%
CMI: 0.9%

Check out Todd Wood's post for more details.

AiG/CMI dispute settled

CMI has taken down its AiG-critical material and posted a notice that reads:

CMI and AiG are pleased to inform you that the dispute between the ministries has been settled to their mutual satisfaction. Each ministry is now focused on its respective mission, having put this dispute behind them in April of 2009.

Nathan Zamprogno noted in a comment on my last blog post on this dispute that AiG still had some of its CMI-critical material about the case online, but it now appears to have been taken down as well.

6th Circuit Court of Appeals tells AiG and CMI to go to arbitration

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis to settle their dispute with private arbitration, the outcome sought by Answers in Genesis and affirming the trial court's ruling. CMI had hoped to force the U.S. dispute into the Australian courts, where a second lawsuit is ongoing and has its next hearing in April. This decision opens a route for AiG to stop the Australian proceedings in favor of the private arbitration that has been ordered in the United States.

The court's decision is here (PDF).

It appears to me that CMI is going to be held to the agreements that its previous board of directors signed, however foolish, irresponsible, or unethical it was of them to do so. As those previous board members resigned in return for indemnification, it doesn't appear to me that CMI is likely to obtain any remedy for the wrongs it alleges have occurred. It looks like AiG operated within the bounds of the law in its actions.

Daniel Radosh's Rapture Ready

Daniel Radosh has a new book out titled Rapture Ready!: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture, which might be entertaining. There's a chapter on creationism that talks about Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, and possibly the split by Creation Ministries International, since Google Books tells me my name is mentioned on p. 279.

Anybody at Scribner want to send me a review copy?

Based on the reviews at Amazon.com, it sounds like Radosh gives Christian pop culture a sympathetic and even-handed portrayal that also points out its absurdities and self-contradictions, similar to the excellent documentary Hell House.

CMI responds to AiG dispute summary

Creation Ministries International has updated its website to respond to the trove of documents released by Answers in Genesis. The Answers in Genesis site now includes the U.S. judge's order to compel arbitration in the U.S. (PDF). The court's order requires arbitration to occur in the U.S., but does not put a stop to the legal action in Australia, on the grounds that one of the documents at issue (the Deed of Copyright License or DOCL) says that the parties do "not object to the exercise of jurisdiction by [the Australian courts] on any basis" (to quote the judge's quotation from the document). The judge describes his order as granting in part and denying in part the Answers in Genesis petition, though Answers in Genesis describes it merely as granting their petition to compel arbitration.

The CMI update has a lengthy list of "WHAT AIG IS CAREFUL NOT TO TELL YOU" that makes the point that the U.S. and Australian groups were not as separate as AiG has tried to convey, with interesting examples such as that the U.S. group had appointed a CEO/COO to report to Ken Ham as president, and Carl Wieland of the Australian group was given the task of firing this person. Another is that the letter from Wieland to the U.S. board that AiG describes as "unsolicited" was actually specifically requested by the U.S. board in response to Wieland's criticisms that he had previously made to the Australian board (three members of which were also on the U.S. board).

AiG describes its former executive VP, Brandon Vallorani, as a dupe or co-conspirator with Carl Wieland, but doesn't note that when he was terminated he was given a payment in return for being bound to silence, and so is unable to comment on what actually happened without breaching that agreement.

The CMI summary notes (as I mentioned, via Kevin Henke, in my previous post) that the Thallon document contradicts other testimony from Thallon about whether the Australian board was pressured to accept the October 2005 agreement: "Ironically, there is eyewitness testimony of people having heard Thallon himself claim that they acted under duress in signing, and we have in writing (written back at the time) from a leading creation scientist and professor that Thallon personally told him that Ken Ham had threatened to not buy the next issue of the magazine if they failed to sign. So Thallon is either telling the truth to this scientist, or he is telling the truth in these documents–it’s hard to see how both can be the case." It's also interesting to note that the Thallon document alternates between U.S. and Australian spellings of some words (e.g. "organization" and "organisation" are both used in paragraph 22), which probably indicates a document prepared by Thallon (an Australian) and one or more Americans (such as AiG's attorneys) that was not fully reviewed carefully for consistency.

AiG/CMI: judge accepts, then withdraws mediation offer

The judge in the U.S. lawsuit filed by Answers in Genesis against Creation Ministries International said that he intended to rule that the groups go into arbitration in Kentucky, under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. But he rejected AiG's demands to stop the legal proceeding in Australia or to force arbitration by Peacemakers/ICC, the organization they had selected for Christian arbitration.

After the hearing, CMI's attorney proposed that the judge himself mediate a one-day attempt to resolve the dispute more quickly, and the judge agreed on the condition that the mediation meeting be limited to Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and their respective attorneys. CMI agreed, posted a note to that effect on their website, and booked airfare.

AiG, however, objected to the restriction to one person, and requested that an additional person participate, on the grounds that Ken Ham is not a member of the AiG board of directors.

The judge then withdrew the mediation offer, and the case will continue in the U.S., without going to Christian arbitration.

CMI has a new web page up describing the mediation offer and speculating on the next steps. They observe that the judge has made multiple statements to the effect that the only jurisdiction mentioned in the legal documents between the groups is Australia, and point out that they have already filed an appeal on that basis regarding the judge's decision to require arbitration in the United States.

CMI has also updated their main web page on the dispute.

CMI/AiG lawsuit update

Answers in Genesis (AiG) sent out a new letter to supporters dated July 23, 2008, and is distributing copies of court filings in the United States regarding their attempt to force Creation Ministries International (CMI) into arbitration and override the lawsuit CMI filed in Australia. An AiG supporter contacted me in email and sent me one of those documents, a motion that AiG filed in U.S. court arguing for arbitration (PDF). (Is there any significance to the fact that it is dated April 1, 2008?) He didn't sent me the other documents, which include CMI's reply to AiG's motion, AiG's response to CMI's reply, and CMI's argument filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office to oppose AiG's attempt to register "Answers in Genesis" as a trademark there. These documents are hosted at http://66.42.196.216:50050/arbitration.htm and each PDF has the password "john17"; my copy of the AiG motion PDF, linked above, has no password.

The AiG filing argues that CMI is the organization that has behaved unreasonably, that CMI has rebuffed attempts at reconciliation, and that Carl Wieland is the one who was trying to take over AiG internationally, not Ken Ham. It argues that the arbitration clauses in the agreement that CMI has issues with--the one signed in October 2005 by the Australian organization's directors who subsequently resigned en masse--are the key applicable clauses. They may have a good legal case, but their overall story seems to me to be at odds with a number of the facts set forth in CMI's detailed chronology of events (PDF). In that chronology, it was CMI that first attempted to argue for arbitration, while AiG ignored their attempts. CMI rejected the specific form and location of arbitration suggested by AiG, as that proposal required keeping the October 2005 agreement in place, when the content and manner in which that agreement was put into place is at the center of the dispute, and required that the arbitration occur in the U.S.

Perhaps most significantly, AiG reneged on the verbal agreement that was reached in Hawaii, saying in writing that it is "off the table." Instead, AiG says the parties agreed to return to Hawaii for another session if no written agreement was reached in a certain period of time--while ignoring the fact that it has made no attempt to reach such written agreement, suggesting that its verbal commitment was not genuine.

CMI has put up a new version of its web page of links to relevant documents, which includes the AiG July 23 letter from Don Landis and their response to it. Their main points of response to the Landis letter are to criticize it for omitting the following:

• AiG’s rejecting or ignoring every one of the straightforward models of Christian arbitration proposed
• That their wanting to have the organisation of their choice arbitrate was only after we had made it plain that if there were no settlement discussions, or Christian arbitration, we had no choice but to launch legal action due to our lawful (hence biblical, cf Romans 13) duties as directors (to have the legal snare their lawyers’ actions had placed around our ministry’s neck removed).
• That our early settlement proposals involved being ready to walk away, with them being allowed to keep the overwhelming bulk of what they had seized. We did not at that stage even request that they do the right thing as far as the magazine subscribers that were deceived in the US were concerned, we just assumed that in due course their consciences would make that happen — it has not happened.
• That by AiG-US seeking to force Christian arbitration to happen in the USA, rather than the countries we offered in the course of the matter (Australia, NZ, Hong Kong, Singapore) it is to their great legal and commercial advantage; including forcing us to spend a great deal more money, despite being the smaller ministry that has suffered the losses in all of this.
• That the jurisdiction their infamous entrapment documents mentions is the courts of Australia, yet they sought to block accountability in those courts and Australian Christian arbitration.
• That the alleged ‘agreement to arbitrate’ they rely upon has nothing to do with their unlawful actions in relation to the magazine.
• Even more importantly, that a settlement agreement was reached at a formal settlement meeting in August 2007, in Hawaii, between all the parties. Though Ken Ham did not appear, although we were told he would, the verbal agreement was reached with formal representatives of both organisations, was sealed with a handshake and a gentleman’s agreement to get it all down on paper urgently and end the matter — but AiG sought to subsequently shift the goalposts and in essence reneged on their commitment. And have since officially stated in writing that the Hawaii agreement is ‘off the table’.
• That they used false pretences to cause our trademark to lapse in Canada, so that theirs could get off the ground, allowing them to immediately use AiG-Canada — see next bullet point about the deceptive confusion this would cause.
• That at the Hawaii meeting, there was general understanding of the reason why the AiG trademark (we have owned that trademark in Australia all along) was important to our safety, which is why they agreed in Hawaii to not use it for several years here and in Canada, for instance. It is not because of wanting to stifle ministry, it is because they had already tried to demand that we hand it over, and had started a widely publicised attempt to get Australian supporters to enlist with them instead. We have NO problem with fair competition, but the law is there to protect against deceptive use of a mark. Our documentation shows how we were forced by AiG to change our name, and if they had then come into Australia or Canada under the old name, people would have been misled into thinking that this was us. I.e. this ministry spent many years building up a reputation under the name AiG. We have said all along that once sufficient time passes, it makes perfect sense to hand over the name rights to AiG, once people realize that these are two different organisations. The same is true for Canada — if we did not act to protect the organisation that used to be called AiG there, their frequently demonstrated desire to destroy that fledgling ministry would have meant that they could do it great harm.
• A major point is that they freely agreed in Hawaii to these temporary restraints on their use of the trademark in those countries.

There was supposed to be a court hearing in Australia yesterday, August 8--I haven't heard whether that occurred and, if it did, what happened, but I will report here when I do.

UPDATE (August 10, 2008): There are now 25 documents on the Answers in Genesis site, and passwords are no longer required for most documents. I've only begun reviewing the documents beyond the first five.

1. Court Order of August 8 (Granting AiG's petition to compel arbitration)


2. AiG’s memo in support of compelling arbitration
3. CMI’s response to AiG’s Motion
4. AiG’s reply to CMI’s response


5. CMI’s Australian lawsuit against AiG and Ken Ham
6. CMI’s Canadian legal opposition against AiG
   


7. Affidavit of John Thallon Thallon presents a case that Wieland wanted "democratic reform" that would give him more control of the overall organization and that the U.S. group was having issues with complaints from him, Gary Bates, and Jonathan Sarfati. This affidavit strikes me as an honest declaration of Thallon's perceptions of the controversy (though possibly with some self-deception) and is probably a good indication of how AiG-US sees its position. It doesn't comment on issues such as AiG-US's reneging on the verbal agreement in Hawaii, the specific terms of the October 2005 agreement, or the way in which AiG-US was deceptive about the continuing availability of the Australian group's publications to U.S. subscribers. There's a funny account of how Wieland became upset by AiG-US making changes to an Australian-authored article, changing the correctly spelled "toe the line" to the incorrect "tow the line." Thallon describes Wieland's reaction as unreasonable, but I'm sympathetic--it's very annoying when an editor introduces an error into an article, without checking with the author. Thallon claims in this affidavit that he was not pressured into signing the October 2005 agreement, but this is not consistent with the Briese report, which says that (a) "In the presence and hearing of the other Board directors and Paul Salmon, Thallon told Wieland the Board had no choice in the matter. If they didn't sign, he said, they faced a 'hostile separation' from AiG-USA. (The Board was firmly against a separation of the ministries.)" and (b) "Subsequently, Dr John Hartnett, an associate professor and volunteer speaker for CMI, telephoned Thallon to get answers for what had happened. Thallon said words to the following effect: 'We had no choice. If we didn't sign, Ken Ham would not have bought the next issue of the magazine.' (There were approximately 35,000 US subscribers to the magazine and the journal.)" (Thanks to Kevin Henke for identifying this contradiction.)
   
8. Affidavit of John E. Pence This affidavit, like the Thallon one, argues that Wieland was unhappy with Ham's leadership of AiG-US and was asking for changes in the organizational structure that the U.S. group did not want to make. I think this declaration makes a strong case that the U.S. and Australian groups needed to go their separate ways. I like the claim that Creation magazine was seen as becoming "too technical" for U.S. readers. Pence argues that the magazine distribution issue was caused by Wieland refusing to provide proofs until after the U.S. group purchased the next issue, and they refused to do so for fear that there was something in the magazine designed to "harvest" information from U.S. subscribers, which there was--but why would it be unreasonable for them to point U.S. readers to their new website if they wanted to renew subscriptions, since they rightly suspected the U.S. group was going to cut off distribution? In Wieland's response, he points out that he had relented and agreed to provide the proofs before payment was made. This declaration, unlike Looy's (below), enumerates specific statements by CMI that the author considers to be false and defamatory, such as that "AiG forced CMI to sign the MOA and DOCL, and that through such documents AiG took valuable property from CMI and attempted to take control over CMI" and that "AiG discontinued purchasing and distributing Creation magazine in bad faith and for purposes of harming CMI."
   
9. Exhibits 1-8
10. Exhibits 9-11
11. Exhibits 12-15
12. Exhibits 16-18 These exhibits include the report from the mediator in Hawaii, and letters from AiG and CMI's attorneys about the settlement and arbitration process. The impression I get is that CMI, more than AiG, was an obstacle to the settlement.
13. Exhibits 19-23 There are further documents here from AiG's U.S. attorney and from CMI's Australian attorney to AiG's Australian firm--again, these make CMI look like the bigger obstacle to settlement.
14. Affidavit of Mark Looy
    Looy accuses CMI of false and defamatory statements, but fails to identify even one such statement.
15. Affidavit of Walter Donald Landis Landis, chairman of the board of directors of AiG-US and lead pastor of Community Bible Church in Jackson, WY, speaks in generalities about the AiG/CMI disagreement, and makes accusations of falsehoods and defamation with little in the way of particulars to substantiate them. He says he wants to participate in any lawsuit, but due to health considerations (he had a heart bypass and prostate cancer, and has "severe anxiety concerning flying"), he can't travel to Australia. Landis' affidavit gives me the impression that he's a major ass.
    
16. Declaration of Kenneth Duncan MacDonald This declaration is from an Australian attorney who has served on multiple corporate boards as to the legitimacy of the October 2005 documents, the MOA and DOCL. He argues that, given the information he has and a few assumptions he enumerates, that these are validly executed documents.
    
17. Declaration of Simon Fisher Another Australian attorney and law professor, this one hired by CMI. He enumerates deficiencies in the MOA and DOCL, and argues that they result in making several provisions of the MOA unenforceable, and putting the status of the MOA as a whole in doubt. He argues that there were transfers from CMI to AiG in the agreement without remuneration and that the board did not appear to consider "the interests of its members as a whole when entering into the MOA and DOCL." He also responds to specific arguments of MacDonald.
    
18. Declaration of Carl Wieland This document contains point-by-point responses to the declarations of Thallon, Pence, Looy, and Landis. There's an error in paragraph 154 where it says "Don Landis Ham"--I believe it means Landis, not Ham.
    
19. Exhibit 1
20. Exhibit 2
21. Exhibit 3
22. Exhibit 4
23. Exhibit 5
24. Exhibit 6
25. Exhibit 7


26. CMI AiG dispute historical docs This document is a PDF of a PowerPoint presentation that has been given by AiG about the dispute, with a lot of emphasis on Carl Wieland's statements about and impressions of Ken Ham. The presentation seems to have the underlying assumption that Wieland's impressions of Ham couldn't possibly be accurate. It also has a slide that indicates that AiG-US was focused on biblical doctrine while the Australian group was focused on science (p. 32, compare to p. 30). An email shows Wieland chiding Ham for endorsing a book that makes arguments that was on their list of arguments that the groups recommended not be used (p. 36). This confirms my original impression of the schism that it partly involved this issue.
    

Update on CMI-AiG lawsuits

Creation Ministries International has updated its website about its legal battles with Answers in Genesis of Kentucky. The latest addition reports that in April, AiG served CMI with a lawsuit in the United States trying to stop the legal action in Australia--even though one of the two contracts AiG is trying to enforce specifies the law of the Australian state of Victoria as the governing law and forum. CMI will be defending itself in the U.S. against the new action.

Filmed for creationist DVD

Yesterday I spent a few hours being filmed in an interview for a DVD being put out by Creationist Ministries International, a 20-year retrospective on the 1988 debate at the University of New South Wales between Duane Gish and Ian Plimer. I went back and forth a few times about whether I should do it, finally concluding that it would be worthwhile.

I have no fear of an "Expelled"-like distortion in this case--the questions were provided to me in advance, and I negotiated the terms of the release agreement and had my attorney review it. I have the right to use the full footage myself (to put on YouTube or otherwise distribute or broadcast), so if I were to find myself misrepresented through creative editing (which I don't believe will happen), I would be able to demonstrate it.

My involvement was requested because of the role I played in criticizing Plimer and certain of the Australian Skeptics for misrepresentations of the creationists, which I wrote about first in the article "Some Failures of Organized Skepticism" in The Arizona Skeptic, and later in "How Not to Argue with Creationists" in the Creation/Evolution journal, "How Not to Respond to Criticism" which is available online through the talkorigins.org website, and in my review of Plimer's book Telling Lies for God, on my website. In preparation for the interview, I dug out my file folders regarding these articles, which amounts to a stack of paper
about six inches thick. Reviewing the files, I re-read some of the correspondence I had with Mark Plummer, then president of the Victoria Branch of the Australian Skeptics, and former executive director of CSICOP (now CSI). At some point, I should put some of that stuff online--it was quite unbelievable.

I thought it went pretty well, though it took me several takes to get through some of the questions, and I didn't say everything I wanted to say. The one item that I kick myself for forgetting to say was to emphasize the point that Duane Gish, debater for young-earth creationism, has two things that he always refuses to debate--the age of the earth and flood geology. Those also happen to be the two main areas of positive claims that make up young-earth creationism, which he rules out of court at the start of every debate.

The interviewer, Tim, is a CMI supporter who once applied for a job with Answers in Genesis and is now happy that he didn't get it, since he feels he was deceived by them about their split from CMI. The cameraman, Mike, who was hired for this job, was also a Christian, but didn't seem to be a young-earth creationist. He frequently films both interviews and outdoor nature footage, often for science documentaries, and he expressed his love for knowledge and science. We had an interesting discussion after the interview about creationism, Christianity, and science.

Tim took the position that young-earth creationism is an essential part of Christianity, because God must have been able to communicate his word accurately in the first place, because Jesus endorsed the truth of Genesis, and because death before the Fall in Eden would imply that God didn't create a perfect universe. He also holds the position that only "operational science" is valid science--that which can take place in the laboratory and be "directly observed" (which philosophers of science know is very little, since instrument-assisted and even naked-eye observation is "theory-laden"). (Tim's view of science, where it came from, and what's wrong with it is the subject of Christopher Toumey's excellent book, God's Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World.) I pointed out to him that that's the kind of choice--young-earth creationism or atheism--that helped drive me to atheism.

Mike, by contrast, didn't think young-earth creationism was essential to Christianity, but that the discoveries of science open more possibilities for religious interpretation. Today, I agree with Mike--given what I know about religions and how they work, Christianity is not defined solely in terms of the content of the Bible, even for evangelical Christians. Fundamentalism as it exists today didn't exist until the early twentieth century. And even within evangelical Christianity, there are those who have argued very forcefully against young-earth creationism (I pulled out my copy of Daniel Wonderly's Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared With Young Earth from the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, and could have also pointed to Davis Young and Howard Van Till's Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science and Evolutionism, or pointed to Mike Beidler's blog, "The Creation of an Evolutionist").

I think it's interesting that if all Christians took Tim's viewpoint rather than Mike's, there would probably be a lot more atheists and a lot fewer Christians.

UPDATE (January 1, 2009): I wrote up my initial reaction to the completed documentary here, and you can view the video yourself here.

New summary of CMI-AiG dispute from CMI

Creation Ministries International has published a new web page summarizing their dispute with Answers in Genesis, much of which is already familiar to readers of this blog. The summary includes an update of events immediately preceding and subsequent to the attempt at arbitration in Hawaii that occurred last August, and links to supporting documents, several of which are newly made public.

New in this report are two interesting emails from Philip Bell, former deputy CEO of AiG-UK, about what was going on inside AiG after the split from CMI. Bell resigned from AiG in June 2006 and is now head of CMI-UK. The first email is quoted in a letter from Carl Wieland to a CMI supporter in Australia who asked why CMI needed to take legal action against AiG, which includes these two paragraphs:

I am very sorry to say that AiG leaders (on both sides of the Atlantic) have engaged not only in unbiblical/unethical behaviour but in the case of AiG-USA, unlawful too—to the great detriment of their former colleagues and sister ministries in the other former AiG countries, particularly Australia—this is not merely what I have been told by colleagues abroad but rather I have personal knowledge of these things. If anyone contacts AiG-USA to find out what’s going on, they are asked to ‘pick up the phone and talk to us’. This all sounds very reasonable but there is no accountability involved because such words are not recorded and amount to so much gossip—they can be flat out denied if it is deemed expedient. I am afraid to say that I have personally witnessed outright lies (of an incredible kind) involving four individual high-ups in AiG (and in one instance I was asked to give testimony to an independent enquiry; something I took no pleasure in doing). CMI’s response has been to put everything out in the open (not without criticism of some Christian brethren of course, some of whom are upset that this seems to amount to ‘hanging our dirty linen out before the world’. I share their dismay but believe that this has to be, if justice is to be done and the Lord’s name is not to be sullied even more in the long run.

I take no pleasure in having to write these things and I know that I speak for my colleagues in CMI-Australia and around the world when I say that we long to get on with the real work that God has entrusted us with. Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that I have no personal axe to grind with any of the AiG leaders concerned, all of whom I once considered friends and got on with very well. This is not about personal differences but about integrity and honesty—simply put, I left AiG because we had a ministry slogan (which I liked and still like) which said: “We are a Christ-centred, evangelistic ministry dedicated to upholding the Word of God from the very first verse.” I could no longer publicly represent AiG when the actions and words of its representatives were anything but Christ-centred (rather they were/and are often man-centred—pride and an unwillingness to admit fault became the order of the day). Neither could I stomach any longer hearing people talk about upholding God’s truth while I had personally witnessed deceit and even bare faced lies from the same people. I am not their judge and I find it very sobering to even be writing these words (James 4:11-12) but the Scripture also advocates that the Christian is to ‘judge with righteous judgment’. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but it is horrendous when pride prevents people acknowledging sin and they continue to cover their unbiblical/unethical actions in God-speak. Frankly, it appears that there is no fear of the Lord in such people. In spite of my strong feelings, I have continued to pray for AiG to this very day and earnestly desire that there will be a righteous outcome that will not allow God’s name to be sullied before the world.

The second email from Bell discusses a letter sent by Monty White of AiG-UK to supporters about the split (and links to a rebuttal of that Monty White letter) and gives a UK perspective on the AiG/CMI split, and reports that not only Bell but two other AiG-UK staff members, Tim Matthews and Rachel Revell, resigned from AiG-UK over these issues.

Creation Ministries explains settlement breakdown

Creation Ministries International has put up a web page explaining the breakdown in settlement talks with Answers in Genesis:

Unfortunately, the actions of AiG-US since the ‘Hawaii handshake settlement’ have meant that, barring a near-miraculous change of heart on their part, the situation appears to have broken down once more.

The terms of settlement were, in the understanding of all parties present, effectively finalized and agreed upon in Hawaii in mid-August (see two ‘stop press’ announcements below) by duly authorized and empowered representatives of the ministries—even though Ken Ham was not present, although we had been led to believe that he would be.

The only thing left was to discuss the details of how to commit the handshake agreement to writing. Both sides agreed to reconvene in Hawaii 60 days later (at the latest), if absolutely necessary, if we failed to finish the process of committing it to writing.

The page goes on to explain that this has not happened, because AiG waited until after the 60 days was over to respond to CMI's written proposal based on the verbal agreement, and AiG's response was to invent an entirely new agreement which omitted conditions that had been verbally agreed to and inserted new conditions which had not been agreed to.

CMI proposed that they move forward by meeting again in person in a neutral country (such as Singapore or New Zealand) with an independent Christian arbitrator and hammering out an agreement in writing. AiG's lawyers responded with a rejection.

At the same time, John Mackay's mailing list in Australia has been ratcheting up the assault on the alleged "spiritual problems" of CMI, which CMI has responded to by sending out this email:

From: CMI INFObytes
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:53 AM
Subject: Serious slander issue against CMI

Serious slander issue against CMI

A short time ago, we were in receipt of a very vicious document circulating from a professing Christian ministry (which not many are aware is operated by an unrepentant church excommunicant) that made astonishing allegations against CMI-Australia and in particular its Managing Director, Dr Carl Wieland.

We did not react at the time, because the vendetta has been in operation for some 20 years now, and we assumed that surely people would have sufficient discernment to contact us to check the veracity of these allegations. However, we are concerned that some might think there might be some substance to the allegations, without understanding that they are clearly designed to undermine the confidence of the Christian public, and to thus attack CMI's ability to do outreach.

We have prepared a written response which makes it plain that these are falsehoods, documentable as such by eyewitness testimony. In it we have challenged the perpetrators to 'front up' and make these claims openly in a proper Christian forum, instead of by slanderous gossip techniques.

If you know of any person who has been in receipt of this particular 'spiritual-sounding' slander, or if your church leaders have heard these unfortunate allegations, please encourage them to email us at [mail at creation.NOSPAMinfo -- edited to prevent spam harvesting -jjl] and request our response to the article in question. If after reading that response, they have any further questions, we will be pleased to answer them. It is a real pity that we cannot just continue our ministry in peace and safety without such distractions.

If you are unaware of any such contemplated move against CMI in your circles, please just pray for this situation in general terms. Your ongoing support of the outreach is much appreciated.

Yours in Christ,

Gary Bates
Head of Ministry, CMI-Australia

It will be interesting to see if AiG makes any public comment.

AiG/CMI settlement seems to have fallen apart

After Answers in Genesis met with Creation Ministries International in Hawaii to hammer out their differences verbally in mid-August, CMI issued a statement indicating that they had agreed to convert their verbal agreement into a written one over the next 60 days. The time has come and gone, and apparently no written agreement has been reached.

CMI's web pages about their lawsuit are back online.

For more information about the dispute, see the "Answers in Genesis schism" label on this blog or the excellent summary at Duae Quartunciae.

UPDATE (November 16, 2007): I've posted a more detailed account of the settlement breakdown.

Two free issues of Reports of the NCSE

I have two extra copies of the latest issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education, which contains my article, "Trouble in Paradise: Answers in Genesis Splinters," which I'll send to the first two U.S.-based readers of this blog to request a copy in the comments.

AiG/CMI reach verbal settlement

Most of the material pertaining to the dispute between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International has been removed from the web as the groups agreed to meet and work out a settlement arrangement in Hawaii. The meetings, which took place on August 14 and 15, reached a verbal settlement which CMI says they expect to culminate in a written agreement within the next 60 days:

STOP PRESS (1)—settlement meetings taking place

Posted: c. 1 August 07

There has at last been agreement for the Boards (and/or their designated representatives) of both ministries to meet face to face—this will be the first time that we have been permitted this with no restrictions on any of our director’s participation.

The meetings will be held in Hawaii on August 14 and 15, 2007, on a confidential basis. The meetings will attempt to:

1. first see if a comprehensive settlement can be achieved or, failing that, to then
2. attempt to reach agreement on the terms for binding Christian arbitration (given that two previous offers for this were ignored, this is an encouraging sign).

The meetings will be facilitated by Mr Peter Reynolds, of Grace Counselling and Conciliation Services in New Zealand, whose services were suggested by Peacemakers Ministries in the USA.

STOP PRESS (2)

Posted c. 18 August 07

Hopeful breakthrough
Following two days of intensive meeting and discussion in Hawaii, the two ministries were able to reach verbal agreement on all the main points of a confidential basis of settlement. Although time ran out (planes were pre-booked) to turn this into a finalized written agreement, all parties present are extremely hopeful that this can take place within the next 60 days or so at the most.

As a gesture in accord with the spirit of mutual goodwill that prevailed at the end, CMI has for now removed access to the details previously on the web, whether chronologies, committee reports, or whatever.

We do this in the confident hope that this will never need to be reversed, trusting that ‘handshake’ agreements between those parties present in Hawaii will be reflected in a formal, signed document that will put these serious issues to rest in a God-honouring fashion. Thank you to all who have been praying.

NCSE on Answers in Genesis schism

The National Center for Science Education has posted a brief report on the Answers in Genesis schism, with links to the coverage by The Australian, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Duae Quartunciae blog, and this blog. In their report, they mention that

A piece by Lippard on the schism is to appear in a future issue of Reports of the NCSE; in it, Lippard concludes, "creationism continues to evolve in fascinating ways."

I encourage you to join the NCSE. The NCSE has long been the major force combatting creationism in the United States, including playing a significant support role for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case decided last year, and it works on a budget that is tiny by comparison to those of Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute.

Answers in Genesis hires Andrew Snelling

Answers in Genesis has announced that it has hired creationist geologist Andrew Snelling, formerly an employee of the Creation Science Foundation, Answers in Genesis-Australia, and Creation Ministries International (the same organization under three names) as well as a contractor for the Institute for Creation Research (they paid him $85,000-$96,000/year to do research for them), to fill their open position.

This partially answers the question of how AiG-US will conduct future "scientific" work, a question which CMI had raised since the Australians were the main contributors to such AiG efforts in the past.

A question that hasn't been answered is why Snelling stopped working for Creation Ministries International and went to the ICR. The Briese report contains this tantalizing tidbit of information, which I haven't seen anyone publicly comment on to date:

I clearly remember him saying that Andrew Snelling [a former Australian staff member who was opposed to the notion that a Christian can ever remarry. He was later dismissed by the Australian Board, which at the time included Ken Ham, for matters unconnected to this issue.] had been right about it at the time and that he (Ken) and others had been wrong. But Ken didn't give me any convincing reason as to why he now saw things so differently and why it was now necessary to make an issue of it.

This description makes it sound like Snelling's departure from CMI was not voluntary, and that he had issues with Carl Wieland (a Christian who divorced and remarried).

Snelling is one of the very few young earth creationist geologists on the planet with a Ph.D. from a mainstream academic institution (Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research is another). Ronald Numbers' book, The Creationists, describes how Henry Morris of the ICR wanted to see a young creationist successfully obtain a Ph.D. in geology from a mainstream institution, only to be faced with failures by Clifford Burdick (who was kicked out of the program at the University of Arizona) and Nicolaas Rupke (who succeeded in obtaining his Ph.D., but rejected young-earth creationism as a result of what he learned in the process).

More disappearing content from the Answers in Genesis website

More content has disappeared from the Answers in Genesis website as a result of its dispute with Creation Ministries International. Now that former magistrate Clarrie Briese has authored a report condemning Answers in Genesis, the existence of numerous web pages on the AiG website praising him for his honesty, integrity, and independence have become embarrassing, and have been replaced with blank pages. Google's cache still has the originals, however.

The web pages describe some previous work Briese had done in evaluating Australian geologist Ian Plimer's book, Telling Lies for God, a book which also contains a nice four-page hatchet job on yours truly, along with some unattributed borrowed content from articles in the Creation/Evolution journal (see my review).

Here are some of the favorable remarks about Briese that were still on the AiG website a week ago:

The Chairman was Clarrie Briese, former Chief Magistrate of the State of New South Wales, where he is still a household word for his dogged fight against public corruption which ended the career of a State Chief Magistrate, and an Australian High Court judge and former government minister.

(Internet Archive here)

These attacks had previously, to ISCAST’s own knowledge, been shown (by an independent committee of enquiry with impeccable Christian credentials led by Clarrie Briese) to be false.

(Google Cache here; this one was written by now-CMI staffer Jonathan Sarfati, but was endorsed by AiG-US at the time of its publication)

And the kicker:

Please remember: All six men listed who formed the committee have significant public reputations and/or positions, quite independently of CSF. We trust it is obvious that such a group would in no way endanger their own integrity and reputations by saying that they had carefully investigated CSF and found the charges against our ethics were false unless this were utterly true.

(Internet Archive here)

Apparently Ken Ham's opinion of Clarrie Briese has completely changed now that he's the target of criticism, to the extent that he wishes to repudiate these remarks by deleting them from the AiG website.

The contrast between the behavior of CMI and AiG-US continues to make it obvious who's being honest in this dispute. CMI is laying out all their cards on the table, including information that is to its own detriment, while AiG-US has circled the wagons and is editing its own history to hide damaging evidence.

UPDATE (July 2, 2008): Google cache has expired, I've replaced the links with links to the Internet Archive where available.

Kentucky newspaper covers creationist lawsuit

The Lexington Herald-Leader has published a story in the Father's Day edition about the Creation Ministries International lawsuit against Answers in Genesis; I was interviewed and quoted in the article as an external, non-creationist viewpoint. I was quoted accurately, though the "unseemly" quote was followed by a statement that actually, the more salacious charges were relevant to the fact that Ham is now working cooperatively with John Mackay, the man who made those accusations, despite Mackay's failure to apologize and repent for them. The article used my position as a balance to AiG and CMI, but I don't think it conveyed the fact that I think CMI clearly has the moral high ground in the dispute.

For Herald-Leader readers who are visiting my blog for the first time, I've got a category of posts that specifically addresses the Creation Ministries International/Answers in Genesis split as well as other categories for Answers in Genesis in general and creationism. But if you'd like a well-summarized overview of the whole matter, I must point you to another blog, Duae Quartunciae, that has done a much better job than I have of putting everything into a nicely wrapped package--it links to my individual articles that go into more detail as appropriate, as well as to other information sources including both CMI and AiG.

Another good recent summary of the CMI/AiG dispute is the article "Lord of the Ring" which appeared in The Australian newspaper on June 5.

Who fears other ideas??

Casey Carmical, of Casey's Critical Thinking blog, posts about the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum under the headline "Evolutionists fear other ideas":

If Answers in Genesis is taking facts “out of context,” it should be fairly easy to point out, and if the information that AiG is presenting is, in fact, inaccurate and involves logical fallacies, then what could be a better resource for teaching critical thinking? Students of the university should be taken to the museum in busloads to learn how to think critically. But alas, evolutionists are not concerned for people’s critical thinking skills, they are afraid of people exercising them. Evolution cannot stand up to criticism, and when both theories are presented side by side people can instinctively see which one better fits with the evidence.

I posted the following comment, but apparently Casey hasn't seen fit to allow it through moderation, though he's let another comment through since I posted it this morning:

Answers in Genesis (U.S.) can’t even be trusted by its former Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian branches–the Australians have just filed a lawsuit against them. See AiG’s response and Creation Ministries International’s commentary.

I think it’s a bad idea to give money to frauds and liars, so even though the Creation Museum does serve as an example of numerous distortions and fallacies, I disagree with your recommendation that students be sent there. Their errors can be–and have been–refuted online, many times over. Pharyngula just had a Creation Museum Carnival that contains numerous commentaries, pointing out such deception as their completely inaccurate depiction of Archaeopteryx.

The final comment is a reference to a critique which may be found at Duas Quartuncias, titled "Jurassic Pigeon at the Creation Museum!"

Apparently Casey doesn't want his readers to see this information. Let's see if he'll allow a trackback...

Answers in Genesis responds to CMI

Answers in Genesis has sent out an email to supporters about the "spiritual attack" from Creation Ministries International. Where CMI has always kept AiG informed about how it has been proceeding and giving them a chance to respond and participate in dialogue, AiG didn't send a copy of this to CMI--but of course they ended up receiving it anyway.

This is the version that CMI sent out to its own supporters, with their comments included (as you'll see described at the very beginning). The AiG letter is in bold, the CMI comments are labeled, and I've inserted a few comments of my own, labeled and in brackets.

I find this very interesting, because if you dig into the details, the case overwhelmingly supports CMI, at least on ethical grounds. (I'm not an expert on the legal matters--the fact that the previous AiG-Australia board signed the one-sided agreement favoring AiG-US may be a difficult obstacle for CMI to overcome.) But most Christians don't care about digging into the details, they just listen to the pastors and leaders that they trust, which is why con men have such success preying on the religious. Ken Ham has apparently done quite well at getting people to side with him based on his own charisma and persuasiveness, but if you read any of his written work critically, you see that it falls apart.

UPDATE (June 18, 2007): A similarly commented email from Mark Looy of AiG-US may be found on the CMI website here.

Answers in Genesis under Spiritual Attack

June 1, 2007

(With interspersed responses, dated June 4, 2007, from Creation Ministries International. Although large numbers got this sent to them by AiG, CMI was not included. We are filled with dismay at the many distortions of truth and misleading comments in this, as we think will become apparent from our response, sadly. A document like this, which is in effect an 'accusation against the brethren', cannot be just ignored-truth matters. Perhaps reading this will help those unfortunate enough to have received it to become aware of why we had to, in an effort to be as open and transparent as possible, invite a formal ecclesiastical/judicial committee of enquiry to form under Clarrie Briese, the reports from which, plus other important documentation, can be found at www.creationontheweb.com/briese2 )

Dear Friends of AiG,

On behalf of the Board of Directors of Answers in Genesis, we want to invite you to praise the Lord with us in the opening of the Creation Museum (and in the blessing He has poured out on the entire ministry). On the museum's opening day, May 28, over 4,000 visitors attended, with more than 100 news media (over two days) also on hand to give the museum wide coverage all over the world. We enjoyed receiving well wishers from other ministries, such as the Institute for Creation Research (its president and chairman were present at the museum's ribbon-cutting ceremony), the Christian Law Association, and others. We give thanks for the tremendous support from God's people in prayer, gifts, and in museum attendance.

We pray and trust that the museum's message will be heard by hundreds of thousands of people each year, and will not only affect the lives of many of God's people, but see many others receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

CMI comment: CMI staff had input into the early stages of the museum planning, before we were 'cut off'. As we have said on our web site and in our Infobytes email newsletter, we are pleased that the museum is open and also hope that many will come under conviction and be saved through the museum's message. This has nothing to do with the dispute.

The AiG board is committed to honoring the Lord and His Word not only in the museum, but in all the ministries of AiG. Our commitment to financial integrity, for example, is evidenced by our membership in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) arid by a special designation from MinistryWatch.com as a "top 30" ministry that people can give to with confidence.

CMI comment: Nor has this much to do with the dispute, as we don't doubt that AiG-US follows proper audited accounting procedures, as required for a non-profit corporation under US law. However, from our experience of appealing to the ECFA for them to intervene re AiG's switching our Creation magazine subscribers to their new 'replacement' magazine, an effective theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars that involved deceiving subscribers into thinking that our magazine was no longer available in the USA, we doubt that its imprimatur means much in terms of guaranteeing ethical behaviour overall.

[Lippard comment: Indeed--it's clear that the ECFA doesn't say anything at all about the accuracy of the information purveyed by AiG!]

In recent days, we received museum opposition from protestors, some media outlets, and through emails and on the internet. Indeed, AiG finds itself in a continuing spiritual warfare. Yet in all this, we give thanks to our Lord, for the Lord will use it for His glory.

CMI comment: Such opposition is the common lot of all who will stand for the truth of God's Word. It has nothing to do with the CMI-AiG-US dispute. CMI is also subject to major opposition. However, such opposition does not of itself prove our godliness, righteousness, etc.

[Lippard comment: AiG's implied argument is: God's people are always under attack when doing his work. We are under attack. Therefore, we are God's people under attack. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent--the same erroneous argument used by crackpots who are receiving ridicule when they claim that "They laughed at Galileo," as though the mere fact that people laugh at them puts them on a par with Galileo.]

While we have received opposition from the secular world during this time, the most disappointing attack has come from our former sister ministry, Creation Ministries Int'l (CMI). On the eve of the opening of the museum, CMI sent letters and used the internet to publicly report on a dispute that is well over a year old. CMI sent us a letter, only 24 hours before the museum ribbon-cuffing ceremony, informing us they were filing a lawsuit against AiG and its president, Ken Ham, in an Australia court. They have now done so. Immediately after the opening of the museum, they sent letters to numerous (perhaps hundreds) of people and used the internet to publicly report the dispute.

CMI comment: This makes it seem as though CMI timed these events to be as nasty as possible. However, the reality is otherwise. Firstly, legal processes like the serving of writs (lawsuits) cannot be timed like this; such processes are determined by the legal process. Legal proceedings were initiated months ago (we told AiG-US of this, associated with one more offer to meet to resolve the dispute, and that being rejected (ignored), and then another offer of binding Christian arbitration-see below). Secondly, when it looked like the serving of the writ was going to coincide with the opening of the museum, we asked for it to be delayed, if possible. Furthermore, to avoid public embarrassment of a sheriff of the court serving papers in person, we asked if there was another way. We were told that if AiG-US told our lawyers the name of their lawyers for service of the writs, they could be lodged with them rather than in person. Why the communication with AiG-US 'only 24 hours before the ribbon cutting ceremony'? AiG-US was having a board meeting over the weekend of the opening, a rare face-to-face meeting of the directors at which the directors of AiG-UK would also be present. We thought it only fair that the directors had the opportunity to discuss the matter in such a setting, rather than by telephone or email, piecemeal, at a later time. Furthermore, we thought that this would have the maximum likelihood of a change of heart (although from the track record of the last twenty months we thought this was only a remote possibility, our directors wanted to pursue every avenue for resolution).

One of CMI's claims is that AiG-USA refuses to meet with its board. To the contrary our board met in person with the legally recognized and appointed board of directors of the Australian ministry (called AiG-Australia at the time) and signed a Memorandum of Agreement in October 2005, which had peacefully resolved the differences at that time (which included an agreement to arbitrate any future dispute).

CMI comment: This is amazingly deceptive, even astonishing in its brazenness. The refusal to meet that we repeatedly bring up is a refusal to meet with the current Board, the ones in office for nearly 18 months now in this time of major dispute. Whereas the Board to whom AiG refers here is not the legally constituted Board of the ministry, but the previous Board which handed over the company after resigning en masse and seeking indemnity from penalties for their actions signing that 'agreement'.

Furthermore, when we talk about a refusal to meet, it is clearly in the context of the present dispute, which only really erupted as a serious legal issue because of and therefore after the signing of the agreement drawn up by AiG-US's lawyers, with all the terrible ramifications for our ministry.

So how can reference to a meeting before that time, with people who are no longer part of the ministry, be anything other than a 'red herring' attempt to confuse the public on the very serious matter of their nearly two-year refusal to meet properly face-to-face to sort out the issues, as befits brethren?

Unfortunately, the management of AiG-Australia later disavowed the agreement and, after an impasse and much frustration with management, the full Australian board resigned.

CMI comment: This is a reversal of the order of events, giving another deceptively false impression. The management did not have the authority to 'disavow the agreement', and did not do so. The Australian management tried to meet with the Board to discuss the 'agreement', which was signed at AiG-US's urging behind the backs of all management here in Australia. (This was contrary to those previous directors' commitment to several senior staff before the joint board meeting that they would 'not sign anything' without consultation.) The Australian directors at the time failed to meet, and events culminated in their resignations. Their resignations were due to their own rash actions, not any 'rebellion' as AiG-US spokesmen have told third parties, poisoning the well for CMI. Furthermore, contrary to the impression given in this email from AiG-US, the Board of CMI (not the management) did not formally reject the 'agreement' until 28 February 2006, just before our re-branding as CMI.

AiG-Australia management then appointed a new board,

CMI comment: This makes it seem as though the appointment of the new board was somehow improper. This is untrue. The outgoing directors specified that the CEO, Dr Carl Wieland, should be made Managing Director and given responsibility for appointing new directors. They said through their lawyer that if Dr Wieland had been on the board (MD instead of CEO) that the recent catastrophic events would not have transpired. In consultation with senior staff and scientists, Dr Wieland chose directors with a proven track record of hands-on involvement with creation ministry. For the details of what happened, see A brief chronology of events www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/dispute/chronological_ordershort.pdf (scroll down to Oct 2005). CMI Board has also instituted another level of accountability for the board; an extra-board membership that outnumbers the directors, which now appoints directors and holds the board accountable at an annual meeting. 'There is safety in a multitude of counselors' (Prov. 11:14).

and changed its name to CMI.

CMI comment: AiG-Australia was forced to change its name when AiG-US told us to do our own web site. AiG-Australia was given this directive in response to our earliest pleas to AiG-US for peace talks, to find a way forward together, in mid-November 2005. This of course forced us to re-brand, since one cannot have two totally separate organisations using the same brand on two separate global websites-a recipe for total confusion, especially for our Australian supporters.

CMI continues to refuse to follow the directives of its former board (as contained in the October agreement), and the restoration of harmony so hoped for in October 2005 was derailed.

CMI comment: It is a strange way to bring 'restoration of harmony', to damage, plunder and pillage the other party, which is what the 'agreement' did. For a summary of the way that the agreement damaged CMI, please see What's our concern with the situation?
(www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4770)

Furthermore, by what reasoning should a lawfully constituted current Board feel itself bound to continue to 'follow the directives' of a Board which has abdicated en masse, especially when their actions have led to so much damage for the ministry?

In subsequent months, CMI continued to deny our requests for the new CMI board and AiG-USA board to meet. At one stage, the AiG board offered to meet with the CMI board at a mutually convenient location for a day or two to get to know each other, and then have the CEOs of both ministries join the boards to try to resolve the issues. To this end, we offered to fly the entire CMI board and its CEO to the U.S., at our expense. But CMI refused this and all other invitations.

CMI comment: This is bizarre in the extreme, a reversal of reality. See Mr Clarrie Briese's summary of the attempts CMI has made to find resolution, which were all rejected or ignored (mainly the latter) by AiG-US: look for the section titled Documents showing Genuine Efforts to Reconcile/Settle the Dispute
(www.creationontheweb.biz/chairmans_report.html ) and following.
The truth is that there was NEVER an offer to meet with the entire Australian Board, face to face, all at once, up front. Note how this is covered over by cleverly referring to the Australian Board 'and its CEO'. AiG knows full well that ever since the old Board's abdication, our ministry has not had a CEO. It insists on using such terminology, because otherwise it becomes a lie to say that it agreed to meet with the Board, because Carl Wieland is and was then a member of that Board. And all of their three (really 2 BD) offers were completely neutralized by coupling them with the following conditions:

a) Not wanting to meet with Carl present, or excluding him for the first two days (Ken Ham's brother later stated that this was so that Ken's Board could persuade the new Australian directors 'why Carl could not be trusted') AND/OR

b) Insisting that the meeting was not permitted to discuss the very issues at stake, namely the 'agreements' signed which plunged the ministries into crisis. We would counter by asking that they drop such preconditions, but to no avail.

It is obviously quite misleading to talk about 'inviting the Board', when one is actually refusing to include one member of that Board. But even more importantly, Carl Wieland was the only director who had first-hand knowledge of the events leading up to November 2005. The exclusion was clearly tactical.

CMI offered to arbitrate the disputes between the ministries, but they insisted on their own set of strict terms and pre-conditions.

CMI comment: No. CMI offered to submit to an arbitration process (CMI was not the arbitrator!), along with AiG-US. The proposal by CMI was never responded to by AiG-US to indicate which 'terms and pre-conditions' were not suitable to them. There was no statement by CMI that the conditions were not negotiable, only that if they were accepted the proposal 'as is', then CMI would be immediately bound to the process (i.e., CMI could not back out). This was the first of two 'binding arbitration offers' refused/ignored by AiG-US. They did not even bother to discuss the conditions.

Instead of relying upon a neutral and recognized arbitration body, CMI proposed its own unique arbitration method and insisted that it be conducted in Australia, under Australian law, and by Australian attorneys or judges. Frankly, CMI's proposal did not comport with normal and accepted rules for arbitration.

CMI comment: Which arbitration offer is being referred to here? CMI made two offers (August 2006 and March 2007), both of which were completely ignored by AiG-US (no response whatsoever). The second proposal was formulated under the guidance of a Christian barrister at law (senior counsel in the USA) and as the proposal stated, it would have been under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Queensland), which sets out the procedures in detail. So it is completely wrong for AiG-US to claim that 'CMI's proposal did not comport with normal and accepted rules for arbitration'. This is yet another example of a baseless claim by AiG-US, and they have been informed otherwise some time ago in writing. This is amazingly prejudicial and misleading statement that has no basis in fact. You can read the proposal at www.creationontheweb.biz/offer-binding_christian_arbitration.pdf and see that it is absolutely fair, with AiG-US choosing three possible arbitrators and CMI having to choose one of those three; what could be fairer? It is in effect saying, 'Pick your own Christian judge'. But having completely rejected all such things, though trying to shift the goalposts at the last minute, they are now able to cloak themselves in the mantle of 'godly persecution' and amazingly, make it look as if AiG has wanted binding arbitration all along!

More importantly, as a ministry in Kentucky, USA, we do not believe the law of Australia is even appropriate in this case.

CMI comment: The arbitration proposal above, reproduced in full on the web, sets out clearly why the arbitration should most definitely be in Australia. This is not some minor issue, and if one is only concerned with a fair verdict, why not use a formal process that involves the very jurisdiction (Australia) which one's own documents have stipulated?

At the least, this is an issue that a neutral arbiter should be allowed to determine.

CMI comment: How would an arbitrator chosen as per the procedure proposed above not be neutral? If anything he/she could be biased in favour of AiG-US, since they would choose all three options!

Having reached an impasse with CMI on numerous issues, we asked the independent, internationally recognized Christian conciliation organization, Peacemaker Ministries (which also has conciliators in Australia), to moderate and resolve the dispute.

CMI comment: This again is highly misleading. It makes it sound as if AiG-US was interested in mediation all along. However, as the Briese Chairman's report documents, it not only ignored such efforts, it formally cut us off with a widely distributed letter containing serious innuendo and libel/slander, which it refused to withdraw when we pleaded with them to do so. The sudden Damascus-road-like conversion to mediation was only after we said we would hold them accountable at law, failing an urgent meeting to settle the issues (which they again refused/ignored).

Under Peacemaker's direction, AiG will meet anywhere to resolve these disputes with CMI and under any arbiter or arbiters that Peacemaker Ministries finds appropriate. CMI refused three offers to settle the issues through Peacemaker Ministries-reusing Christian mediation and binding arbitration (and CMI even rebuffed Peacemaker Ministries directly). We are saddened that CMI rejects neutral Christian arbitration and conciliation, and instead opts to publicly try the dispute in the secular courts.

CMI comment: Once again this is a bizarre twist on what happened. After 18 months of our pleadings being ignored we told AiG-US that we had no choice but to hold them accountable at law. Suddenly AiG-US got interested in Peacemakers mediation, but at that stage, they were not suggesting going straight to arbitration. This is a very important distinction, as will become clear. (And we are only aware of one such formal proposal, not three.) They said that the process might lead to arbitration, but there was no formal proposal for binding arbitration. (See later re the informal phone call at the very, very last minute, when they had our lawsuit wording in their hands, about binding arbitration after all.)

[Lippard comment: In other words, AiG is willing to talk about arbitration to derail and delay a legal process, but not willing to commit to making that arbitration binding. So if they like the result of the arbitration, they'll commit, but otherwise, walk away or engage in further delay to avoid any results they don't like.]

Furthermore, the statement: 'CMI even rebuffed Peacemaker Ministries directly' is clearly and misleadingly designed to make us sound evil by innuendo. The truth is that we gave AiG-US our carefully-considered reasons why we could not take part in a process of mediation prior to binding judgment, because of the delays their intransigence had caused, which would permit them to drag things on past the point of our rights to redress expiring. Nevertheless, we gave them the last offer of binding arbitration, making it clear that because they had used Australian law (paying Australian lawyers, specifying the legal jurisdiction as Australia) to tie us in legal knots, all would have to be settled under Australian law, as it would be if we chose not to be merciful and proceeded to hold them accountable. However, instead of coming back to us, or even discussing our arbitration offers, AiG-US had Peacemakers approach us. So, our courteous response was of course to Peacemakers, who seemed to be acting as a proxy for AiG-US. As CMI said at the time, we would be happy to engage Peacemakers in a mediation process leading to reconciliation, after the legal noose is removed from CMI's neck. Since AiG-US would not willingly agree to such noose-removal, it could only be achieved by arbitration or, failing AiG-US agreeing to that, court action. Engaging in mediation before resolving the legal issues could well have jeopardized our ability to later find redress for the legal matters, as even Peacemakers' own information points out. At the very last minute, (everything was already in train. They had our lawsuit wording in their hands and had seen the Briese report) AiG-US finally indicated, via a third party phone call, that they would be now willing to go to binding arbitration but only via this same organization, and still rejected arbitration under Australian law. But without ever once saying to us why our proposal was unacceptable. This was literally only DAYS before AiG wrote this document to which we are responding, so it is highly misleading to give the impression as if all along they were willing to have binding arbitration. It's easy to say things, but it's documents that speak for themselves; which is why Mr Briese's report, analyzing the documents, turns out to be so vital.

We are grieved that CMI chose to make this matter public world-wide via the web and an email campaign;

CMI comment: AiG-US engaged in an email campaign by innuendo against CMI (CMI has a 'spiritual problem'; 'contact us for more details'). We don't know who received such emails or what they were told by AiG-US when they made contact. CMI's efforts are aimed at bringing resolution. If the only way this can happen, it seems, is to bring things into the light, then so be it. Scripture says that things whispered in secret will be shouted from housetops (Luke 12:3). If people do nothing wrong in secret then there is nothing to fear from public exposure.

in this manner, so many distortions and untruths have been scattered abroad.

CMI comment: No distortions or untruths have been pointed out by AiG-US. This is yet another example of AiG-US making grand claims without substance (Mr Briese also documents such tactics by AiG-US regarding emails by Dr Sarfati. When asked to produce evidence in the light of day, nothing happens).

One of the links they provided connects to something called the "Briese report." This report was issued by a group of people -- selected by CMI itself -- to conduct an "investigation." Because of concerns over the perceived bias of this panel (since it was selected by CMI and headed by a "member" of the CMI organization, and since CMI itself set the "objectives" of this panel), AiG and others associated or familiar with this dispute declined to be involved.

CMI comment: Please read the credentials of the committee members at: www.creationontheweb.biz/briese_committee_menu.html . All have independent reputations that they would not risk to rubber stamp some subterfuge of CMI or anyone else. This charge by AiG-US is astonishing in its brazenness. Mr Briese's reputation as a corruption fighter is unblemished (you could have read about Mr Briese on AiG's web site, except they recently removed the Creation article about him). You can read it at: www.creationontheweb.com/Briese . This was published well before any of the current troubles erupted. Yes, Mr Briese is one of the wider members of CMI, mentioned by us above, one of the body that holds the Board accountable at an annual meeting (that's all; he is not on the payroll, etc.). Also, Mr Briese chased the paper trail, which is a legal procedure that uncovers documents that have been not divulged (deliberately or inadvertently).

Indeed, it is shocking that CMI, which is a Christian organization, would employ such tactics

CMI comment: Tactics? This is a 'smear statement', with no substance. In desperation, we asked this eminent committee to form, to try to once again avoid the legal road. We not only invited AiG to participate, but said that if they did, we would also participate with a similar committee of their choosing, provided only that the rules of total openness were followed. The same Clarrie Briese, incidentally, helped save this ministry with a similar enquiry from damaging libel by a renowned humanist opponent, something for which Ken Ham, as a director at the time, was very grateful for.

and then publicize this report as fact, when it is filled with half-truths and blatant advocacy of the CMI position.

CMI comment: Once again, AiG-US makes unsubstantiated accusations. What half-truths? Mr Briese would certainly like to hear about them! Mr Briese's findings are backed by extensive quotes from AiG-US documents and some 700 pages of documentation are indexed to his report. Yes, Mr Briese certainly arrived at a point of supporting CMI's contentions, because that is where the evidence led. But he also added, of his own volition, his own observations, which only strengthened the gravity of the matters. If AiG had evidence to the contrary, and had provided it as invited, the Briese committee would have certainly wanted to follow the evidence wherever it led. In fact, Clarrie Briese's membership of the company is precisely to be in a role of watchdog, to hold the directors accountable.

Up to this point, our Board had chosen to remain silent and was trying to resolve this matter privately.

CMI comment: Yes, the silence even extended to completely ignoring almost every request that CMI made to meet to resolve the difficulties. But it has not extended to silence on the telephone to other parties, or the whispering campaign against CMI personnel, as documented by Mr Briese. As we have shown in www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/dispute/chronological_ordershort.pdf and as Mr Briese also independently documented, AiG-US have resisted every effort to settle this dispute.

CMI has now made this dispute public, and we are now compelled to provide information to you to clarify this matter.

CMI comment: It would be fine if it was accurate and not disinformation, as most of this is.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when even Christians have become highly litigious and are increasingly eager to use a secular court system to settle matters,

[Lippard comment: AiG-US is all-too-willing to rely on (or at least threaten to use) the "secular court system" to settle matters when it suits them. Check out this cease and desist notice that they issued to the Internet Infidels when I was president of that organization regarding cartoon parodies posted by users of our message boards. (This was ultimately resolved without legal action--we asked those who made the cartoon parodies to change the names on them and remove all references to the trademarks, then only removed those which failed to comply.) Also see below, where CMI mentions that they have documentation of a legal threat against them by AiG-US.]

CMI comment: It is with tears that CMI has embarked on legal action. It is a total misrepresentation of the directors' attitude to suggest that they were 'eager' to use the secular court system. AiG-US has no basis whatsoever for such a grave smear. Any reasonable person would see that we have gone the third, fourth and fifth mile in trying to resolve these matters privately, and then proposing Christian arbitration. All efforts rejected. Court action was the last resort, having tried all else. Their last-minute shift, 'dragged kicking and screaming' to the position of themselves informally proposing going straight to binding arbitration, should not be portrayed as a keenness for resolution. We asked them to explain what was wrong with our proposal (you can check that proposal for yourself). We cannot help but think that they are fearful of jointly submitting to arbitration under Australian law (despite having invoked Australian law themselves) perhaps because they know that there are issues of breach of Australian company law, etc. Should we permit those engaging in the breaches to choose their own jurisdiction, but let them knock back a much fairer, cleaner and more straightforward offer, using established rules of long standing? The other thing about Australian arbitration is that it is governed under law, which means that if the Christian judge makes an error of law in favour of CMI, e.g., then AiG could appeal it on those grounds. In short, if they were serious about peaceful resolution, they would have been able to choose their own Christian judge, and the whole matter would never have reached the public eye. The incredible distortions in this document give strong support to Mr Briese's sober judge's analysis of what is driving this whole thing and the need for it to be dealt with.

even trying to justify such actions by declaring that somehow Romans 13:1 overrides I Corinthians 6.

CMI comment: So is this saying that the CMI Board should allow CMI's supporters and staff to be defrauded by AiG-US? (How about 1 Cor. 6:8?) This would be an option for an individual, but not necessarily for a corporation governed by the laws of the state. To say otherwise is close to the same sort of reasoning that has led some Christians to think that a president of a country should never defend its citizens, because the Bible says individual believers should turn the other cheek.

But we totally agree that it is a shame for Christians to have to use secular authorities - as Paul said, they should be able to sort things out ecclesiastically. That should be something they agreed to ages ago, not just after it's clear that we will be taking them to court.

We are deeply concerned that a para-church ministry would refuse Christian arbitration and then decide to sue brothers in Christ with a lawsuit, thus disobeying the Spirit of God's instructions in I Corinthians 6.

AiG encourages people to be like the Bereans in the Book of Acts and read these two passages for themselves.

CMI comment: As part of this process, the whole counsel of God should be considered. As part of this, please consider: Why CMI-Australia is holding AiG-US legally accountable for its actions (www.creationontheweb.biz/lawsuit_justification.html ) Note that we have documentation of a written legal threat by AiG-US against us, so this position that it is always under any circumstances 'disobeying the Spirit of God' appears to be a position of current convenience. (Obviously, every Christian corporation potentially relies on the power of the law when it goes into any sort of contract, or registers a trademark, or gives a copyright warning on its work, for example. The point is the desire to sort it out between brethren if at all possible, and this is where the problem has been, as the Briese documentation makes clear.)

Our heart is particularly sad for the churches and pastors, and even book distributors, in Australia who have also been warned or threatened with legal action by CMI for their affiliation with AiG-USA. Notwithstanding the myriad of details about the issues involved, this legal threat by CMI against churches and others constitutes a serious disobedience to our God.

CMI comment: Note: 'notwithstanding the myriad of details about the issues involved'. In other words, if the reader were apprised of these it would not be as AiG-US insinuates. AiG-US's attempts to act deceptively in Australia by passing themselves off as Answers in Genesis in Australia when many (most?) still think of CMI as 'AiG' here, will be resisted, with good justification to avoid confusion (trademark law protects against such deception / trading off confusion). If AiG-US would walk in the light, it would not be trying to further undermine CMI-Australia by ruthless commercial actions, on top of what it has already done. This whole matter being raised by AiG-US to paint us in a bad light is also addressed in the Briese report. This judicial analysis is based on the documents, most of them exchanges between CMI and AiG-US, not on hearsay, emotive rhetoric or 'spin'.

AiG is committed to honoring God and His Word. We covet your prayers during these trying days. Yet, the Lord be praised.

CMI comment: It would bring a real, tangible blessing to us if AiG-US would really honour the whole of God's Word, including such strong admonitions as Micah 6:8 (God calls us to do justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with God).

If you have questions concerning the basics of this issue, please call Mark Looy, AiG's chief communications officer, at (859) 727-2222, ext. 450 (please note that AiG is in the eastern time zone). If you have theological questions concerning our understanding of the Scriptures as they relate to this issue, please contact our board chairman, Pastor Don Landis (through Mark, who will pass it on to Pastor Landis).

[Lippard comment: Note that Landis is the man who, in a letter to Carl Wieland, asked him if he had any undisclosed sins that might be causing this dispute, such as taking too many medications or being involved with pornography (quoted in the Briese report). That's a tactic that reminds me of the Church of Scientology's "sec check" procedure!]

CMI comment: If you contact Mr Looy, or Mr Landis, could you please get them to put their comments in writing (print) so that what is said can be tested to ascertain that you are being told the truth, or given accurate exegesis? Proverbs 18:17. Sadly, many have been just too willing to believe what they are told without checking it out (be good Bereans as AiG-US has said!). In fact, one of the tragedies in all of this has been that AiG-US's standard pattern has been to ask people to 'contact us and you'll get the facts'-but always declining if asked if a CMI person could be there to give the other side of the story. And/or people are sworn to secrecy not to reveal to CMI what they are told. Which is why it was so important to have the open (Briese) enquiry at last, where evidence could be presented, and tested at cross-examination.

We plead with you to help us inhibit this unbiblical internet gossip and rumor mill by contacting us directly and/or simply committing it in prayer to the Lord. Thank you.

CMI comment: What CMI has put on the Internet is not gossip or rumor. No one has demonstrated any factual error in what we have made available, and as we have said, if anyone will demonstrate such error we will correct anything we have written and we are sure Mr Briese would also. It is 'whispering' in telephone calls, swearing people to secrecy, as has been the pattern, that is gossip by definition, and that generates dark deeds and poisons relationships. So people are being urged to avoid gossip by partaking of gossip! We have with tears pleaded and pleaded for even the courtesy of open meeting for resolution, yet now we see this document that claims the very opposite, as if black is white, and good evil. Enough! If we had had the chance to talk all together in the open, even once, then maybe AiG's Board, or at least some of them, might have come to see how seriously 'filtered' their understanding of events is. Sadly, this was never once permitted.

Sincerely,

Board of Directors
Answers in Genesis -USA

Pastor Don Landis, Chairman
Dan Chin, Vice Chairman
Dr. Mark Jackson
Dan Manthei
Tim Dudley

With sadness, but resolved to see righteousness reign,

The Board of Directors,
Creation Ministries International (Australia)

Kerry Boettcher, Chairman
Dr David Christie
Rev. Dr. Don Hardgrave
Carolyn McPherson
Dr Carl Wieland