AiG - CMI split

[jereth]

Many of the regulars here will know that Answers in Genesis split up in early 2006. The US and UK branches retained the name AiG, while the Australian, New Zealand, South African and Canadian branches were renamed as Creation Ministries International (CMI). AiG stopped circulating Creation magazine in the USA, and started its own magazine Answers.

The reasons for the split are explained on the CMI website as follows:

... in late 2005/early 2006, the US ministry withdrew themselves from the international ministry group (with the exception of the UK) with an expressed desire to operate autonomously from the four 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)...

However, you may have noticed that CMI has now established offices in the US and UK (see http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/42/60/ and http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/100/ ) and continues to circulate Creation magazine in the US (see http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4102/102/ )

In addition, note these comments on the CMI website (emphasis mine):

Creation magazine has for over a quarter of a century always been produced by the Australian ministry (now renamed Creation Ministries International), and was purchased in bulk by Answers in Genesis USA (from a special printing by us within the US) for distribution to a mailing list to which we have no access.


Our notification of the cessation of this arrangement was the web announcement by AiG-USA in late February, when we were almost ready to print the batch in the US (subscribers in other countries have not been affected).


On this announcement, it was stated on the front page of the AiG-USA website that US subscribers would be automatically ‘upgraded’ (wording since changed in the archived article) to another magazine, unless they chose to have their unused subscription money refunded. In reality, of course, you have the choice of continuing with Creation, whether you want the substitute magazine in addition or not.

To me, it sounds like the split wasn't as amicable as we might previously have thought. There is definitely a hint of bitterness in these words. And the fact that CMI is now trying to get a foothold back in the US and UK (which should be AiG's territory) strongly suggests that the two ministries are not cooperative but competitive.

Does anyone have any knowledge of what is really going on? Why has this split really occurred, and why are they all being so secretive about it?

 

[laptoppop]

Secretive or just respectfully private? What business is it of ours? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems more like gossip than anything useful. Yes, there was a split between creationists. There have been lots of splits between churches, and various evolutionists, etc., etc. This has no bearing on the theology of creation or the truth of any discussion.

 

[shernren]

Yes it is more gossip than anything useful. But gossip is fun!

The one thing that caught my attention was that AiG very quietly retracted its open rebuke against Hovind after the split. Check out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

compare to

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/

And this page:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/

is no longer hosted at AiG at all, as far as I can tell.

One thing though, you can see that CMI really has a lot to learn from AiG in terms of presentation. Look at the URLs - AiG's URL is quite obvious, but CMI's only quote an uninformative article serial number. I've still stuck with citing AiG whenever I need to verify that creationists believe a certain thing, because I think AiG would be more inviting to the average creationist - CMI has a very technical feel about it (like ICR) that I guess would be off-putting to the typical layperson.

 

[jereth]

Secretive or just respectfully private? What business is it of ours? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems more like gossip than anything useful. Yes, there was a split between creationists. There have been lots of splits between churches, and various evolutionists, etc., etc. This has no bearing on the theology of creation or the truth of any discussion.

I agree the split has no bearing on the theology of creation. However, I still feel justified in asking the question. Let me explain. If AiG & CMI manage to successfully go their separate ways without any drama, then well and good. Problem is, this is not what appears to be happening. First there is the scarcely concealed squabble over the magazines. As if that isn't embarassing enough, CMI goes and sets up offices in the UK and US despite claiming on their website that this is just an issue of "operating philosophy" and "brand names".

Think about the potential situation in 5 years time. If CMI ends up with successful and thriving ministries in the UK and US, AiG and CMI will be clearly positioned as competitors in the public eye. It will then be obvious to everyone that the current image of an amicable split is just a whitewash. Inevitably, this will reflect badly on both ministries.

Just look at Hovind. At least half the crap he gets is not because of his theology or teachings, it is because of his operating practices (the alleged tax evasion and so on). The point I'm making is that whenever a prominent individual or organisation does something that is not fully above board, it will come back to bite them in the @$$ -- even if their theology is immaculate. This is because, whether they like it or not, they are publically accountable by virtue of the fact that they are a public ministry.

So either CMI should come clean now, and openly admit what they're doing (i.e. setting up an alternative, competing ministry to AiG)... or else they should lay off, close down their UK and US offices, stop distributing their magazine in AiG's territory, and allow AiG to operate unhampered and unthreatened.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I agree the split has no bearing on the theology of creation.

actually, it might very well have a bearing on the issue.

if, the debate between the two is how to understand science and how to use science and scientists in the YECist movement, then the split is not about tactics but about very basic ideas.

For example.
It appears very hard to retain qualified scientists to work for places like AiG or ICR. They, if they have a high commitment for truth, seem to eventually desert YECism. If AiG has decided not to seek expert help on the scientific issues as it's experts leave when in their studies they are convinced that the YECist position is untenable, and not replace them. And if CMI has decided to continue the course and try to present scientific sounding research in "origins science" despite the apparent problems, then the issue is lots more than just tactics, it is the failure to create this chimera "origins science" and the admission from AiG of this fact and the continuation of the movement as a purely religious phenomena.

 

[jereth]

I agree the split has no bearing on the theology of creation.

actually, it might very well have a bearing on the issue.

if, the debate between the two is how to understand science and how to use science and scientists in the YECist movement, then the split is not about tactics but about very basic ideas.

For example.
It appears very hard to retain qualified scientists to work for places like AiG or ICR. They, if they have a high commitment for truth, seem to eventually desert YECism. If AiG has decided not to seek expert help on the scientific issues as it's experts leave when in their studies they are convinced that the YECist position is untenable, and not replace them. And if CMI has decided to continue the course and try to present scientific sounding research in "origins science" despite the apparent problems, then the issue is lots more than just tactics, it is the failure to create this chimera "origins science" and the admission from AiG of this fact and the continuation of the movement as a purely religious phenomena.

Is this actually true? Is AiG really abandoning science altogether, or are you just speculating (along with the rest of us)?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is this actually true? Is AiG really abandoning science altogether, or are you just speculating (along with the rest of us)?

In this section Mackay appears to show that Answers in Genesis (AiG) was running a publishing scam where authors of creationist books had to submit them to AiG for approval. However, AiG charged the authors for what, in effect, is a bogus peer review amongst creationists. If the authors refused to pay, AiG blew them out of the water with highly critical reviews.
Basically, authors had to toe AiG's line and pay them for the privilege of doing so. This policy appears to have resulted in AiG breaking apart. The Australian arm looks set to continue the policy with AiG accepting all and any old rubbish, even that which contradicts their own loony views.

According to Jim Lippard's blog for 6 March 2006, see Answers in Genesis schism: U.S. group goes solo:
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.
(Lippard, based in America, is well known in pro-science, anti-creationism circles.)

from: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_inherit_windbags.htm

from: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/03/answers-in-genesis-schism-us-group.html

Now the Australian group (along with ministries in Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa) has changed its name to Creation Ministries International, explaining in a recent brochure that the U.S. group did not want to be "subject to an international representative system of checks/balances/peer review involving all the other offices bearing the same 'brand name'."
...
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 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'.

it appears to be over money and peer review.
from:

 

[shernren]

I'm probably grasping at straws here but I'm guessing that rmwilliamsll's pet issue of "external adjudication between interpretations" is in operation here. He talks about how it motivates splitting denominations, but I could hazard a wild guess that it's in operation here as well. Essentially, the entire core philosophy of AiG seems to have been a commitment to honouring internal adjudication over external adjudication ("any evidence contrary to the Bible is invalid") with a strong core of scientists who utilize external evidence to "prove things". Certainly there is a tension between these two views (internal adjudication vs. external proof), and perhaps this tension caused the two groups to fall apart.

Again, this is really a lot of conjecture. I hope the two groups would come clean about exactly what their relationship is. In particular, if evolution is so dominant and the fight so holy and dire, why are they splitting their resources?

 

[Mallon]

Really, this is just one more example of a long line of creationists organization dissolving because of issues of interpretation:
-Religious Science Association splits over Flood evidence (1937)
-Deluge Geology Society splits over age of earth (1948)
-Creation Research Society breaks off from American Scientific Association for being "soft on evolution" (1963)
-Christian Science Research Center dissociates from Creation Research Society and Institute for Creation Research over power struggle (1970)
-ICR dissociates from CRS in attempt to downplay religious motives (early 1980's)
-Creation Research Ministries splits from Answers in Genesis over issues or scientific rigour and interpretation (2006)

There's more. But I'm sure we all get the point.

 

[theFijian]

I guess this shows that unsurprisingly you only need two people to have disagreement (sometimes less! )

 

[jereth]

it appears to be over money and peer review.

Okay, so AiG does not want its material to be subject to peer review. Can we necessarily conclude from this that AiG is abandoning scientific input altogether and continuing as a "purely religious phenomena"? They're still making scientific-sounding arguments aren't they? (or attempting to at any rate)

I'm probably grasping at straws here but I'm guessing that rmwilliamsll's pet issue of "external adjudication between interpretations" is in operation here. He talks about how it motivates splitting denominations, but I could hazard a wild guess that it's in operation here as well. Essentially, the entire core philosophy of AiG seems to have been a commitment to honouring internal adjudication over external adjudication ("any evidence contrary to the Bible is invalid") with a strong core of scientists who utilize external evidence to "prove things". Certainly there is a tension between these two views (internal adjudication vs. external proof), and perhaps this tension caused the two groups to fall apart.

It's friday evening and I'm tired. Could you please explain that again in simpler words? thanks!

I hope the two groups would come clean about exactly what their relationship is.

If they want to keep the precise reasons for the split private, that is their choice. (The cost of secrecy, of course, is endless speculation and rumours which can sometimes be more damaging than actually letting the truth be known.) But I really think that CMI has to start acting more honourably. Their deliberate invasion of AIG's territory seems quite contradictory to their claim that the split was over purely "operational" reasons.

OTOH, I imagine a fair chunk of the magazine revenue came out of the US, so you really can't blame them for trying to win the US readership back

In particular, if evolution is so dominant and the fight so holy and dire, why are they splitting their resources?

Apparently because the non-Americans came to their senses and realised that said resources were being absolutely wasted on the stupid museum (according to article referenced by rmwilliams)

Analogy: There's a rowboat containing Australian and American oarsmen. The Americans were rowing backwards, so the Aussies realised the boat would go faster if they threw the stupid Americans overboard

 

[shernren]

It's friday evening and I'm tired. Could you please explain that again in simpler words? thanks!

No problem. "Internal or external" to the Bible: ie, "internal evidence" is evidence from the text of Scripture itself (one's interpretation of it), "external evidence" is evidence from nature (one's interpretation of it).

Inability of internal evidence to adjudicate simply means that internal evidence may not be sufficient to decide between alternative interpretations of the Bible. Take the well-worn geo/heliocentrism controversy. The essential problem geocentrists had was that internal evidence could not convince them that they were wrong, i.e. the Bible never promotes heliocentrism. Heliocentrists had to use ("resort to") external evidence to refute them.

The general issue is that internal evidence is not enough to allow us to choose interpretations. For example, an atheist reads the internal evidence of John that Jesus said "My words are life". A Christian says: "Doesn't this show that the Bible is true?" - for him internal evidence corroborates his views. The atheist responds "No, it's bunk. It's only natural that a book of lies would lie even more by calling itself true" - for him internal evidence corroborates his opposing views. Internal evidence alone does not discriminate between such wildly differing views as non-Christians vs. Christianity over the issue of the Bible. Why should it be able to make decisions on such fine-grained matters such as who should be baptized and how to receive the Eucharist - let alone whether there was a vapour canopy or if Behemoth was a dinosaur?

External evidence will normally support only one of two opposing viewpoints, hence it adjudicates successfully. For example one could point to historical records of Jesus' existence (external evidence) to convince the atheist that the Bible isn't bunk. On doctrinal matters of course there is no "external evidence". But when it comes to science by right any disputes there are should be solved by external evidence, and origins shouldn't be any different.

This is where speculation begins.

What rankled me about AiG's invalidity clause is that it essentially reverses things i.e. instead of expecting external evidence to judge an interpretation of Scripture, one expects internal evidence to judge these interpretations and hence to judge external evidence. The problem is that internal evidence is not enough to decide, even between creationists eg vapor canopy vs other Flood theories. External evidence would show that a vapor canopy cannot possibly be plausible (as AiG states on their don't-use page), but without referring to it, opposing camps would just degenerate into one camp claiming that the other camp doesn't read their Bibles. Without reference to reality there is simply no way to read science from the Bible.

And so we would have a culture where external evidence is not brought in. By itself that promotes fragmentation - over doctrinal matters, where "external evidence" does not exist, the church has split many times. Furthermore, I can imagine that a more rigorous approach stating that "we should approach the external evidence fearlessly, it will corroborate our interpretations" would be rebuffed by reference to the idea that Scripture (where everything else is inferior) interprets Scripture. Hence a split: if both parties cannot agree on who is right or wrong, then naturally there will be a split with each fragment insinuating by speech or behaviour that the other fragment is wrong.

 

[jereth]

Thanks for that clarification shrenren!

And so we would have a culture where external evidence is not brought in. By itself that promotes fragmentation - over doctrinal matters, where "external evidence" does not exist, the church has split many times. Furthermore, I can imagine that a more rigorous approach stating that "we should approach the external evidence fearlessly, it will corroborate our interpretations" would be rebuffed by reference to the idea that Scripture (where everything else is inferior) interprets Scripture.

Clearly, the problem we have here is differing views of "sola scriptura" and scripture as final authority. YECs have the extreme view that scripture is the final authority even in science, and therefore all authorities external to scripture must without exception be brought into conformity with what scripture says. TEs on the other hand restrict the "sola scriptura" principle to theology, and acknowledge that in matters of science scripture is inferior to external authorities.

It is worth noting that the Reformers (with whom the "sola scriptura" principle originated) did not have the extreme attitude that YECs today have. For instance, Luther and Calvin respected church tradition, they just did not wish to give it the primacy that Roman Catholicism did.

Hence a split: if both parties cannot agree on who is right or wrong, then naturally there will be a split with each fragment insinuating by speech or behaviour that the other fragment is wrong.

No doubt it's just a matter of time before it becomes more clear exactly what the differences are between AiG and CMI's philosophy. From what people have said, my guess would be that AiG will head increasingly down the whacky path where reason doesn't matter, while CMI tries to hang on to a semblance of scientific credibility.

 

[shernren]

You're welcome

Clearly, the problem we have here is differing views of "sola scriptura" and scripture as final authority. YECs have the extreme view that scripture is the final authority even in science, and therefore all authorities external to scripture must without exception be brought into conformity with what scripture says. TEs on the other hand restrict the "sola scriptura" principle to theology, and acknowledge that in matters of science scripture is inferior to external authorities.

Modern supporters (if that's the right word) of sola scriptura have coined a term of protest to describe such thinking (of "scripture alone as final authority" with an absolutizing of "alone") : solo scriptura. Googling the term yields quite a few sites criticizing it. For example, http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

Perhaps the best way to explain the fundamental problem with the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura would be through the use of an illustration to which many believers may be able to relate. Almost every Christian who has wrestled with theological questions has encountered the problem of competing interpretations of Scripture. If one asks a dispensationalist pastor, for example, why he teaches premillennialism, the answer will be, “Because the Bible teaches premillennialism.” If one asks the conservative Presbyterian pastor across the street why he teaches amillennialism (or postmillennialism), the answer will likely be, “Because that is what the Bible teaches.” Each man will claim that the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man’s interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other’s, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?
The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means — to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.
​

 

[jereth]

The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means — to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.

A very good analysis, IMO. And so the final authority is not Scripture, as is claimed, but rather the individual's own personal opinion of what Scripture is saying. This sort of approach, "me and my Bible" (as rmwilliams has put it elsewhere) in total isolation from external reality, is where YECist interpretations of Genesis ultimately come from.

Of course, we know that a reliable interpretation of Scripture can only be achieved by the church, working through tradition, historical and linguistic analysis, and other relevant external factors (eg. science). This is as true of Genesis as it is of all scripture.

 

[Mallon]

Here are a few interesting new details regarding the CMI-AiG split that someone recently posted to the ASA mailing list:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/ (scroll down)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/dispute/response.pdf
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4261/

Insteresting to see both CMI and AiG react to allegations and issues of "spiritual problems", misusing Scripture, and scientific integrity, as accused by fellow Christians. Good to see the shoe on the other foot.

EDIT: More here: www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/dispute

 

[jereth]

Well there you go. It finally comes to the surface.

I'm glad CMI is now doing the honourable thing and being open about it all.

Let's all hope that the 2 organisations can resolve their differences in a Christlike manner.

 

[shernren]

Oh dear, oh dear. I don't have much love for scientific creationism but this is simply ugly. And the whole truth isn't out yet:

- It appears that AiG were widely disseminating their own set of documents. Does anybody have access to those, or have a copy of them?

- What is this "certificate of divorce" that CMI received from AiG in October '05? (page 5 footnote 6)

- What is this trademarking issue they are so worked up over? I have no idea what they are saying on page 6 - that CMI should be allowed to keep rights to AiG trademarks?

The liberal peppering with Scripture seems to me disingenuous and unnecessary. In particular there is even argument over interpretation of Scripture - and how Scriptures are relevant to arbitration processes. This is just weird. Is the Bible a manual for resolving disputes as well as a history textbook from page 1, now? It seems that they are quibbling far more over internal standards of how arbitration should be done and what honesty is, when the external standards of common sense would have been far more clearcut. I had no idea you could appeal to Scripture to avoid meeting someone who has a grievance with you!

Frankly this smells of some sort of personal vendetta between Ham and Wieland. But I don't think further speculation is healthy. In any case, let us hope that they will indeed be able to resolve their differences in a Christlike manner - including setting aside the smokescreen of Scriptural citations and using their common sense for once, "external to Scripture" as it is.

 

[shernren]

As usual the Lippard Blog has the dirty details:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-from-behind-scenes-of.html

And the October '05 "certificate of divorce" was the MoA signed by the Australian directors who subsequently resigned with indemnity:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4770
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/dispute/largebluefont.pdf

Saddening stuff.

 

[jereth]

You're right, all that scripture quoting has an unsettling feel to it... Like each side is trying to trump the other by being more holy.

It sounds like AiG and CMI began splitting up under tension back in 2005, but initially were able to give the public the image of an amicable split because nothing too hostile had happened yet. But as time progressed, legal and financial disputes escalated to the point that the hostility can no longer be hidden. It's sad to see Christians reduced to fighting over money and territory...

So the schism clearly wasn't just a simple tactical decision. There's some underlying philosophical, personal or managerial factor at the heart of it. Let's not speculate too early (perhaps it really has nothing to do with sympathy with Hovind, and the like), and let events speak for themselves.