Is Answers in Genesis becoming a cult?

[teddyv]

It's more of a personal interest of mine, but recently Answers in Genesis has decided to start the Inquisition within their own ranks of their hated "compromisers", those awful creationists who understand that which they disagree with and try to understand the current science and literature. So this would be people like Kurt Wise, Todd Wood, and all those at the New Creationists.

Here is their most recent and final article going after this nefarious group of wolves in sheep's clothing.
https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/young-earth-evolution-a-call-for-discernment/

Here is the laughable final paragraph:

As we bring this series to a conclusion, please note that the point of these articles is not to quibble, play semantics, cause unnecessary division, or look for another reason for people to be outraged. Honestly, nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, our desire is for clarity, conviction, equipped Christians, saved souls, and God to be glorified through the bold proclamation and application of his Word.

As this point, AiG is really starting to look like a cultic organization. We have Ken Ham, the undisputed and charismatic leader. They have already denounced any Christian organization or school that teaches anything non-Creationist. Now they are warning their own about those in the group that are actually not who they say they are so they consolidate their own power.

I suppose the question might be - can this be sustained? Or will it collapse when Ken Ham is no more? There are not really any up and comer's in their organization that can fill his shoes. Most of the key people are getting older. They do have a stable of wealthy supporters, considering the funds they needed for the Ark Encounter and another recent purchase of a large building for an educational and adminstrative complex.

[ProDeo]

I gave the issue a rest when I realized the following possibility. The garden was a supernatural place, A&E wanted to know about good and evil, God gave them what they desired, the natural evolved Earth, a place full of good and evil.

[RabbiKnife]

I don’t need Answers in Genesis to tell me what orthodoxy is

So I’ve generally always ignored these

[shepherdsword]

I debated Ken Hamm on the age of the earth(creation) at one of his seminars back in the 90s. His only comeback was his classic line "were you there?" I just answered "of course not and neither were you" He doesn't even accept the proton to proton method of matter formation in stars or the speed of light as a constant. At the break I had lunch with Dr Gary Parker, a biologist who traveled with him. I as much got him to admit that the "gap" theory is a possibility and young earth a farce. He didn't actually change however as he is still a teacher at CAM. I remember them all promoting Brown's "hydroplate theory" until it was totally debunked.

[watchinginawe]

I think they are up front, their name is "Answers in Genesis" after all. They have a particular religious point of view and defend their "movement" from opposing views. I've seen this at every level my entire church life on a host of issues. Disagreement always allowed, just not as a leader or teacher, go somewhere else.

I read the linked article. I don't doubt that somewhere the "wolves in sheep's clothing" is presented, but it doesn't seem apparent in the article. It pretty clearly states that institutions that appear to support their religious view have influencers within who bring confusion to the dogma. They ask people spending money to carefully consider their choices as some institutions have given non-aligned views a platform, that seems to be it.

I'm not plugged in on this topic (or apologetic, or whatever) but I do believe materialism as a philosophy is dangerous and it has more than infiltrated "learning", it has outright become the default view. Make no mistake that they purge their ranks far more efficiently than Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.

I don't run a school, but if I did, I would have to make important decisions on curriculum, textbooks, and teachers among other things. Those decisions and the viewpoints that direct the choices is what the school would be about. I don't see any harm in seeing what a school is really about under the skin to see if it aligns with my values and principles. If it's a religious school, or directed primarily by religious doctrine, then that will be expected to be a stated view and protected.

Anyway, I wanted to throw some kind of dissent in here, just because. I'm kind of interested to go look up the debate and see how shepherdsword came out. lol

[RabbiKnife]

I only have one question….

Did anyone do anything that remotely told people about Jesus today…

Other than that, I do t care much any more

Too many in house family pissing matches and not enough external proclamation of the gospel

[watchinginawe]

I only have one question….

Did anyone do anything that remotely told people about Jesus today…

Other than that, I do t care much any more

Too many in house family pissing matches and not enough external proclamation of the gospel

We agree on that. I wrote but then erased that a lot of this falls into a "misplaced faith" category. The focus of faith becomes more than about Jesus. If we get the Jesus part right, then you have a solid foundation to consider and develop an opinion on the rest. When they start adding how a particular view of Genesis is essential to having faith, well that is where I depart as it begins to become a misplaced faith. But there are lots and lots of categories like these.

[teddyv]

I only have one question….

Did anyone do anything that remotely told people about Jesus today…

Other than that, I do t care much any more

Too many in house family pissing matches and not enough external proclamation of the gospel

Creationism, as promoted by AiG and other orgs, does have real world and gospel implications. This is putting stumbling blocks before people and I have seen this in a very personal matter with a family who has been seeking faith.

[Fenris]

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas

[Jemand]

I only have one question….

Did anyone do anything that remotely told people about Jesus today…

Other than that, I do t care much any more

Too many in house family pissing matches and not enough external proclamation of the gospel

I appreciate your concern and I whole-heartedly support it.  However, I do not believe that teddyv is off track here.  Having a firm foundation upon which to base our faith is essential to the effective sharing or our faith.  That firm foundation is often the result of soul-searching dialogs and debates that take us deeper and deeper into the word of God—including the languages in which God chose to give it to us.  However, Kurt Wise and Todd Wood are not the problem at Answers in Genesis—the problem is Ken Ham!

[Athanasius]

I consign AIG to dogmatic, rather than cult.

So I have Moreland et al's tomb of a book "Theistic Evolution" behind me, and between that and the Oxford professor of evolutionary developmental biology I've spent the last ~2 years speaking with, I can tell you that it's not Moreland who is compelling. AIG is very much not compelling. This whole idea of teetering one's entire faith on one very particular view of Genesis is bewildering.

AIG commends the "Berean" approach but then asks the person to "[make] a wise decision in which college to attend". Okay, so, how is one going to be Berean if one isn't learning the material to test it, etc.? Imo, AIG would be better served by providing actually compelling arguments against "YEE", than telling people instead to be careful of the boogeyman.

Take an article like https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/how-much-evidence-is-there-for-evolution/ as an example and all we get is an extended attempt at character assassination.

The best thing I can say about AIG is that it's bizarre. The worst is that its dogmatism is pushing people away.

[teddyv]

I consign AIG to dogmatic, rather than cult.

So I have Moreland et al's tomb of a book "Theistic Evolution" behind me, and between that and the Oxford professor of evolutionary developmental biology I've spent the last ~2 years speaking with, I can tell you that it's not Moreland who is compelling. AIG is very much not compelling. This whole idea of teetering one's entire faith on one very particular view of Genesis is bewildering.

AIG commends the "Berean" approach but then asks the person to "[make] a wise decision in which college to attend". Okay, so, how is one going to be Berean if one isn't learning the material to test it, etc.? Imo, AIG would be better served by providing actually compelling arguments against "YEE", than telling people instead to be careful of the boogeyman.

Take an article like https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/how-much-evidence-is-there-for-evolution/ as an example and all we get is an extended attempt at character assassination.

The best thing I can say about AIG is that it's bizarre. The worst is that its dogmatism is pushing people away.

In the last couple of months, the hand-picked successor to Ken Ham, left the organization with no real explanation (not that one is required). Also, Ken Ham's son-in-law, Bodie Hodge, has also left and the AiG website has scrubbed all of his content. I thought he was going to be the successor.

They are still making money through donors and services like homeschool curriculum (I don't think the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are big money-makers). The whole organization seems to hang on Ken Ham running the show. It has the hallmarks of the charismatic megachurch pastor that is the "brand". Can the organization survive without him? Maybe, but I would suspect, short of a comparable replacement, its influence will diminish.

[Athanasius]

I consign AIG to dogmatic, rather than cult.

So I have Moreland et al's tomb of a book "Theistic Evolution" behind me, and between that and the Oxford professor of evolutionary developmental biology I've spent the last ~2 years speaking with, I can tell you that it's not Moreland who is compelling. AIG is very much not compelling. This whole idea of teetering one's entire faith on one very particular view of Genesis is bewildering.

AIG commends the "Berean" approach but then asks the person to "[make] a wise decision in which college to attend". Okay, so, how is one going to be Berean if one isn't learning the material to test it, etc.? Imo, AIG would be better served by providing actually compelling arguments against "YEE", than telling people instead to be careful of the boogeyman.

Take an article like https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/how-much-evidence-is-there-for-evolution/ as an example and all we get is an extended attempt at character assassination.

The best thing I can say about AIG is that it's bizarre. The worst is that its dogmatism is pushing people away.

In the last couple of months, the hand-picked successor to Ken Ham, left the organization with no real explanation (not that one is required). Also, Ken Ham's son-in-law, Bodie Hodge, has also left and the AiG website has scrubbed all of his content. I thought he was going to be the successor.

They are still making money through donors and services like homeschool curriculum (I don't think the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are big money-makers). The whole organization seems to hang on Ken Ham running the show. It has the hallmarks of the charismatic megachurch pastor that is the "brand". Can the organization survive without him? Maybe, but I would suspect, short of a comparable replacement, its influence will diminish.

Oh, that's interesting. If that's going on then I agree, it'll 'reduce' to something like, what are they, ICR or Creation.com? Looking at those sites just had me reading their analysis of mitochondrial Eve. 6,500 years old they say? Maybe Ham was onto something with these YEE people 😂

[teddyv]

Oh, that's interesting. If that's going on then I agree, it'll 'reduce' to something like, what are they, ICR or Creation.com? Looking at those sites just had me reading their analysis of mitochondrial Eve. 6,500 years old they say? Maybe Ham was onto something with these YEE people 😂

I think CMI and ICR are still considered part of the non-compromiser flock, even though AiG spun out of ICR in apparently a rather spectacular power struggle. CMI is still active in the church talk circuit. They've been through my town a couple times over the last couple of years. Their arguments are still as bad as ever.

The "YEE" rants targeted the people such as those at the New Creation blog (Dr. Todd Wood and Ken Coulson are probably the best known).

[YeshuaFan]

What would be New Creation?