Answers in Genesis-Creation Ministries International's Statement of Faith

Copyright AiG: copied for purposes of criticism or mockery (most likely mockery). The original document can be found on the official AiG website. The same document exists at Creation Ministries International.

The AiG/CMI Statement of Faith

RW's Statement of Doubt

---

---

Section 1: Priorities

---

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

This opens with everything we need to know about AiG and their YEC advocacy. "Creation Science" is officially all about the creation and nothing to do with science. By stating that the Bible is inerrant and above any evidence, they exclude the most fundamental aspect of the scientific method and the whole point of research.

---

The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This second clause is interesting; it states that you cannot just take the nice teachings of Jesus (you know, the "love thy neighbour" stuff) and ignore the sheer batshit craziness of parts of the Old Testament. Thus, the AiG Statement of Faith excludes most moderate Christians across the world who are happy to accept parts of the Bible as metaphor or fable.

---

---

Section 2: Basics

---

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

Obviously this is bibliolatry: wouldn't God be the supreme authority in everything God's words are teaching? Additionally, the 66 books are only the ones used by Protestants. A controlling majority of the world's Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts and more) have additional books in their Bibles (the Ethiopians, who became Christian even before Rome did, are rather notable in this regard, for their Bible has a whopping 81 books).

---

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

Failure in logic: such a circular-argument statement would prohibit fallible human beings from establishing "official" interpretations. However, the existence of such a list and the fact that one has to agree to the list in order to get a job at AiG constitutes an establishment of an "official" interpretation. It should also prohibit them from having the entire section 4 because "The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture" should constitute establishment of an "official" interpretation. Much of section 2 and 3 would also suffer in a similar way because the statements in those sections are either establishing official interpretation to some degree or are unrelated to scriptures (so they are unnecessary for inclusion).

---

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, we note that scientific research already possesses a very good and reliable framework, and that the Genesis account as interpreted by AiG has been thoroughly falsified; see our article on evidence against a recent creation. Emphasis also on "simple", as if the Bible were indeed meant to help us learn about things not pertinent to Theology (most Christians hold that the Bible is only relevant to theological matters), one would expect an all-knowing deity would have left at least indirect clues to all the stuff from subatomic particles to the large-scale structure of the Universe and everything in the middle that Science has revealed to us.

---

The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

See also: Baraminology. Amusingly, this implies the acceptance of evolution well beyond the species level on the part of YECs at a staggeringly high rate since the flood — one much faster than claimed by any scientist or supported by any available evidence.

---

The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

See also: Global Flood If Genesis consists entirely of history, then the Flood was historic. If Geneis includes myth, metaphor, allegory, or poetry, then the "historic" narrative becomes less factual.

---

The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

If AiG's theology becomes utter bullshit unless the facts line up exactly, this shows just how much faith they have in their own dogma. Also, could someone explain to us why salvation requires anything more than the existence of any old sin committed by a given potentially saved individual?

---

Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

Uh, right; this one would really stretch natural law, particularly the straw man that the creationists make out of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In order for a being to be immortal, the DNA in its cells must replicate perfectly every time. This does not happen, both in real life and according to the arguments that creationists put forth with regard to DNA: that it always tends toward containing less information. Unless AiG is asserting that the Fall literally changed the laws of nature to add the second law of thermodynamics, this claim isn't even self-consistent.

---

---

Section 3: Theology

---

The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

---

All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.

If all people are individual sinners, then why is the creation story so essential to the Necessity for Salvation? Adam or no Adam, they would need salvation anyway.

---

Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.

Again, parsing matters. There is a difference between "Freedom from" the "penalty and power" of sin and "Freedom from the penalty" and "power of sin"

---

The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

---

The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.

---

Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.

The cynic would suggest here that the AiG people are not being saved, believing that instead of "faith alone in Christ alone," the test of salvation is that a person must accept the truth of Genesis alone and accept it based, not on faith, but on scientific evidence.

---

All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.

Does this not directly contradict the above point? If "faith alone in Christ alone" is all that is necessary for salvation, is not everything necessary for Salvation right in the New Testament? Or even in one verse of the New Testament?

---

Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

Plagiarizing the Apostles' Creed is not really necessary at this point; the prospective job applicant has gotten the message: "Persons Who Are Not Christian Fanatics Need Not Apply!"

---

Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.

I've said it once and I'll say it again - "What is the freakin' hold-up?" And how would fallible human beings correctly identify Jesus? AiG stops short of providing any details.

---

Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.

If this is true, it would be fairly easy to argue that AiG are in the wily old Serpent's pay; they are doing more than anyone else to give God and Christianity a bad name.

---

Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.

"Granpa said if God was as narrer-headed as them idjits that done the arguin' about piddlin' such, then Heaven wouldn't be a fit place to live anyhow. Which sounds reasonable." —Forrest Carter. See also: Argumentum ad baculum

---

The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage. Any form of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc., are sinful perversions of God’s gift of sex.

The statement has already gone over, numerous times, how a literal interpretation of the Bible is a must. This leaves one wondering why they would go on and on and on here about a particular logical consequence of that belief; perhaps AiG does not want to associate itself with certain high-profile evangelical crusaders due to violation of this particular Biblical prohibition? Also, Christianity was ambiguous on polygamy until Augustine of Hippo came out against it in the fifth century. In antiquity, Jews could be polygamous and had to get special dispensation in monogamous Rome to have more than one wife; they did not formally give up polygamy until A.D. 1000. Thus, the claim that monogamy follows directly from the Bible is on rather shaky ground.

---

It is the duty of Christians to attend a local Bible believing church, as portrayed in the New Testament.

While taking a jab at the Cafeteria Christians probably does no harm, it is not exactly helping either.

---

All human life is sacred and begins at conception (defined as the moment of fertilization). The unborn child is a living human being, created in the image of God, and must be respected and protected both before and after birth. The abortion of an unborn child or the active taking of human life through euthanasia constitutes a violation of the sanctity of human life, and is a crime against God and man.

How sacred can it be when AiG doesn't have the courage to oppose capital punishment and war?

Section 4: General

---

The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture.

It is instead an exposition of their particular interpretation of the Bible.

---

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

Nowhere in the Bible does it give an exact year number for the creation, and the writers and copyists of the Bible are known to have mucked about considerably with the dates.

---

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

How exactly is this one implied by Scripture? Hint: "hours" are not properly defined from the scripture within the perspective of Genesis.

---

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

See our articles on the flood geology and Global Flood.

---

The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

Quite so; it was made when people got their noses out of the Bible and started to realize that the world could tell its own story without that book.

---

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.

For once, we agree. However, it appears that AiG does not; as seen in the next point, they wish to divide knowledge and/or truth into two very similar magisteria, viz., things that are allowed to be questioned, and the Bible.

---

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

A little tip, fellows; if you are to convince anyone that creationism is incontrovertible scientific fact, it does not help matters to be starting out from the presupposition that it is, for that is the very definition of Circular reasoning. Modern science started out with young-earth presuppositions, and debunked them all the same; if the Bible is such a shining beacon of truth, you should be able to debunk methodological naturalism from within. More fail in logic: Wouldn't the interpretation of the scriptures in this "statement of faith" be made by likewise "fallible" people just like everyone else? Even if God can interpret the scriptures for you and stuff it all into your head, you cannot distinguish these interpretations between genuine work by God or if some malicious entity just made it all up.