The fruits of war (creationist branch)

Duae Quartunciae (will he ever settle on a name?) has an excellent historical summary of the Answers in Genesis civil war. There’s loads of fun stuff there, including an account of a prior split that involved accusations of witchcraft and “demonic infiltration”, Ken Ham’s pitiful claim that he is currently under “spiritual attack”, and bizarre sleazy shenanigans, largely driven by the nastily ambitious American group led by Ken Ham.

In October of 2005, there was a fateful meeting between AiG-USA and members of the board of the Australian group [now called Creation Ministries Internation, CMI] — but not the management of the Australia group. The Australian board signed a rather startling agreement, in which they give AiG-USA a license to use and modify all the articles on the website, while at the same time holding AiG-Australia liable for any damages that might be claimed arising from such changes. Basically, they handed over complete control of the articles to AiG-USA, took full responsibility for ensuring authors would also consent to this, and accepted full liability for any damages should the original authors object!

It’s got lots of links to the documentation published by both the Australian and American creationist groups. One of the wonderful benefits of this kind of internecine battle, besides the fact that they are eating their own, is that all kinds of useful internal information spills out of the wounds. And now it’s all nicely organized in one place.


  1. says

    You’re a fine one to talk, Meires, or Meyers, or Mahyrs or whatever it is.

    Thanks for the link. I’m talking about this with a creationist at CARM, and a bit concerned that his head may explode. Red State Rabble also picked up the story and gave it the perfect title. Schadenfreude. Enjoy!

  2. Jeffery Keown says

    What’s with mangling the man’s name. Can you not read? Myers. Say it slowly.

    As for PZ being a fine one to talk… he is. I read PZ several times a day, and find that his discussion is exactly what those Creationist Liars for Jesus deserve, the lot of em.

  3. says

    S’okay… I omitted the smiley. This is actually an old old old joke from when PZ and I and many others were all active together on the USENET group John Wilkins is best at the mangle. He tells me that if it starts with m and ends with s you can put nearly anything you like in the middle and it works.

    By the way; I’m “Duo Quartuncia”, or “Duas Quartuncias”, or “Duae Quartunciae”, or whatever. I’ve had quite a lesson in Latin trying to get it right. The number of ways you can write “two” in Latin is appalling.

    Pharyngula is my favourite blog; and well before there were blogs PZ Myers was one of several strings I used to search out good threads on We’ve got a few disagreements… I’m one of the milksop atheists or whatever we are being called these days.

    Pleased to meet you, Jeffery! Let’s all get back to roasting marshmellows over the embers of Ken Ham’s reputation.

    Cheers — Chris

  4. says

    Hey, I’ve settled on my name, it’s everyone else who is confused.

    With all the revisions of your blog title, I’m just going to have to call it DQ to keep it straight. Or “Dairy Queen” when I’m feeling snippy.

  5. says

    I think Chris Ho-Stuart, whose name links to Duae Quartunciae was good-naturedly mocking PZ by acknowledging PZ’s “will he ever settle on a name?” comment.

    I interpreted his comment as a thank-you, not a criticism.

  6. says

    By the way, I think the new title is “pantywaist atheist”. We’re still trying to settle the nomenclature. Know any ontologists, preferably militant atheist ones with a mean streak?

    Oh, and also: people with whom I have no disagreements aren’t very interesting.

  7. fusilier says

    Which CARM board? I hang out mostly on EVO, GENeral Science, and the Phred Phelps Phan Club boards.

    fusilier, who tries hard to keep the same screen-name everywhere
    James 2:24

  8. Graculus says

    The number of ways you can write “two” in Latin is appalling.

    Well, it really depends on two of what.

    What’s much worse is trying to translate idioms, because first you have to explain to the person requesting the translation what the idiom really means.

    “Yes, “you suck” does refer to fellatio, not soda straws.”

  9. waldteufel says

    As I was roasting my marshmallow over Ken Hambone’s reputation it occurred to me again that not only do creationists lack rationality, they tend to lack a sense of wit or whimsy.

    People here rag on each other (and themselves), wield puns like rapiers, and generally exhibit neural synapses at play.

    Go to AiG, or Uncommon Descent, or the DI, or any other creationist website and you find slow-witted and pious drones.

    My two cents.

  10. Jeffery Keown says

    I have a question… how do professional scientist view the non-scientist public? Those of us who are interested in Science, Education and Freethought? I try to be patient with the creationist crowd, but I don’t have the complex answers PZ and the like have. What role are we seen as having in this Non-Debate? Seems sometimes like all I can do is parrot “29 Evidences.”

  11. says


    My advice, as a fellow layman in all relevant fields, is to try to know more background than the other guy, and know it more accurately. It really helps, for example, to know something about Biblical context, something of which the vast majority of fundies are wholly ignorant. And stay away from a top-notch master(de)bater — they have a knack for making you feel dumb while saying nothing at all.

  12. says

    This is true. I enjoy fencing with smart people who think for themselves, rather than joining in with the chorus elsewhere.

    That said, I’d still rather argue with young earthers than pantywaist atheists. Mostly because the pantywaist atheists drop their foils and run away crying.