Talk:Creation Science Foundation

Post comment,
or browse more talk.

Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Recommendation for Deletion

The Creation Science Foundation became Answers In Genesis (Australia) which subsequently became Creation Ministries International (Australia) (CMI). There is already an article on CMI, and I feel that another on the same organisation under its former name is unnecessary. The article in question was written by new user Tim Talbot, and the following is copied from his talk page:

...do you really think there is a need for an article on CSF? That is, I think that one on Creation Ministries International (which already exists) is sufficient; I can't see the need for another on the same organisation under its old name.
Philip J. Rayment 12:34, 17 April 2006 (GMT)

Re CSF. Yes, I think it would be good to have a record of this. John Mackay in particular has never had anything to do with Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International is long removed from his time with the organization, so it seemed incongruous to have him linked with it in any way. I won't push it if you want to remove it, but feel it is a record that none of the newcomers to creation will know about if it's not recorded. I was involved with CSF at the time, but do what you think is best. Cheers. Tim

My reason for suggesting deletion doesn't match any of the criteria listed above, and it's not a clear-cut case of it being inappropriate. I'm therefore suggesting it here not for admins to immediately act on, but to invite comments from other users.

If a majority of others think it merits retaining I'll go along with that. If it is "deleted", I would suggest that (a) any useful material in it be removed to other articles, such as CMI, and (b) that it not be deleted as such, but turned into a redirect (to CMI). This should leave the history of the page intact.

Philip J. Rayment 14:00, 17 April 2006 (GMT)

I recommend merging this information into the AiG page, and having CSF and Creation Science Foundation redirect there. PrometheusX303 15:33, 17 April 2006 (GMT)

Author's comment

Philip

I've been thinking over this entry and now feel stronger that it should stay. My reasons are:

1. It doesn't match any of CreationWiki's criteria for deleting articles, as you admitted.
   
2. It is not offensive.
   
3. It's accurate and informative.
   
4. It contains information that anyone researching the history of creation science in Australia would not find quickly elsewhere.
   
5. If the information trickles into other articles it will take extra time for someone to get the information (either extra search time or extra time sifting through other articles).
6. Your statement above that says the sequence went CSF to AiG to CMI is not a totally accurate picture of what happened. And the wording in Answers in Genesis's entry on CreationWiki doesn't paint the full picture either. That's because it says AiG "began in Australia in the 1970s", when in fact Ken Ham started it in the US in 1995 while CSF was still going in Australia. AiG was the organization Ken Ham started, and his organization has never become CMI, and is never likely to. It is still AiG in the USA. Today's CMI is the result of a split with AiG USA, not simply a change of name.
7. In fact, I'm fairly certain CMI was the name Carl Wieland used in South Australia in the 1970s, and was never part of CSF, which started independently in Queensland. I would have to check that (it was before my time). But even if I'm wrong on this point there seems no reason that deleting the CSF entry would help anyone, while there are several reasons it would slow down future historical research.

Even more important is this: I believe that deleting the item would show that CreationWiki's rules for deleting articles are arbitrary and untrustworthy. This may reduce even further the eagerness of good creationist authors and editors to become involved with CreationWiki. It certainly put a cap on my eagerness when I found that one of my well-meaning articles about a part of creation history suddenly appeared on a "name and shame" page even though it did not breach a single deletion criterion.

It would be respectful to new contributors to let them know you have a "name and shame" page like this one that they may appear on at any time whether they breach the guidelines or not. I didn't realize it existed. A private email would be much less threatening and more thoughtful unless the article really does breach the deletion criteria badly. I spent a good part of my first few days at CreationWiki writing and editing articles in good faith. Within three days I suddenly found my name publicized and what I thought was a helpful entry challenged and displayed in contradistinction of the deletion criteria.

I'm sure to you it's not important how the contributor feels (otherwise you would have acted differently). But to me the way this was done shows a bit of a mean spirit in you Philip, and lack of consideration towards a well-meaning new contributor. -- Tim

Proposer's reply

Tim,

I'm sorry that you feel upset by this. That was certainly not my intention. You make some reasonable points, but I have some comments regarding some of them. I'm responding to your points about the deletion policy and your perception of my attitude on your talk page.

1. It doesn't match any of CreationWiki's criteria for deleting articles, as you admitted.
True. In my opinion, CreationWiki has not yet matured to the point of making provision for every eventuality. (It's only in the last few weeks that I added a rudimentary style guide, for example.) I have done editing on Wikipedia in the past, and I use that as a guide when there is nothing here to contradict it. Wikipedia allows for deletion of articles on a wider range of grounds, such as being unencylopedic, not of sufficient interest, or covered adequately elsewhere, for example. This CreationWiki deletions page was clearly not set up to cater for the possibility of an article being deleted purely on the grounds that it was not warranted, but lacking any such page I decided to "adapt" it to include this case. It doesn't make sense to me that an article must stay on the grounds that it doesn't meet any of the criteria listed above.

4. It contains information that anyone researching the history of creation science in Australia would not find quickly elsewhere.
True. Which is why I suggested incorporating the material into another article. In fact it was because of my concern that this should happen that I suggested the page be changed into a redirect, as this would retain the information in the history of the page in case it was not moved to another article before the page was deleted.

5. If the information trickles into other articles it will take extra time for someone to get the information (either extra search time or extra time sifting through other articles).
If the page was changed to a redirect to where the information is, I don't see this being a significant problem.

6. Your statement above that says the sequence went CSF to AiG to CMI is not a totally accurate picture of what happened.
I actually said CSF to AiG (Australia) to CMI (Australia), which I believe is totally accurate, even if could be expanded.

Today's CMI is the result of a split with AiG USA, not simply a change of name.
Hmmm. Yes, it is a result of the "split", but apart from a change of name and new web-site, very little else has changed. Carl Wieland has reverted to being the Managing Director instead of the C.E.O., and there are changes at a board level, but it has the same speakers and other staff working out of the same premises and producing the same publications. "A change of name" is a pretty accurate statement. Just for the sake of comparison, AiG US has kept the name, the web-site, and staff, but has chosen to change publications (replacing Creation with their own magazine and dropping Journal of Creation) and has replaced most of its intellectual input to the web-site, etc. with new people. Which one has changed the most? (That is a rhetorical question.)

And the wording in Answers in Genesis's entry on CreationWiki doesn't paint the full picture either. That's because it says AiG "began in Australia in the 1970s", when in fact Ken Ham started it in the US in 1995 while CSF was still going in Australia. AiG was the organization Ken Ham started,...
True. That's because the AiG article was written before the CMI era. Now that things have changed, the article needs some modification.

In fact, I'm fairly certain CMI was the name Carl Wieland used in South Australia in the 1970s, and was never part of CSF, which started independently in Queensland. I would have to check that (it was before my time).
It was a little before my time also. But from this article and some of my back issues, I can provide the following information:

• Carl Wieland's South Australian organisation was the Creation Science Association, begun in 1977. It soon expanded to other states except Queensland.
• Shortly after, Ken Ham and John Mackay started Creation Science Educational Media Services in Queensland.
• In 1979/80, CSA "joined forces with the Queensland group".
• That group became Creation Science Foundation in 1980 and CSF took over the production of Ex Nihilo.
• Ex Nihilo vol. 2 No. 3 (July 1979, the earliest that I have) said that it was the "Journal of Creation Science Association Australia". It listed addresses in most states, but listed the Sunnybank P.O. Box as the Australian Headquarters.
• Ex Nihilo vol. 2 No. 4 (Oct. 1979) had the same details, but also has an advertisement for "Creation Science Educational Media Services" at the same Sunnybank P.O. Box. The editorial related that Ken Ham would be resigning from the his teaching job on 28th September to go full time in creation ministry. This also made mention of the "book work of C.S.S.".
• Ex Nihilo vol. 3 No. 1 (Feb. 1980) said that is was the "journal of Creation Science Association Australia", with the Sunnybank P.O. Box headquarters as the only point of contact listed.
• Ex Nihilo vol. 3 Nos. 2 and 3 (May and August 1980) said that they were copyright by "C.S.P.".
• Ex Nihilo vol. 3 No. 4 and vol. 4 No. 1 (Nov. 1980 and Mar. 1981) said that they were copyright by "Creation Science Publishing"
• Ex Nihilo vol. 5 No. 1 (June 1982) (the next one I have) said that it was copyright by "Creation Science Foundation".

Philip J. Rayment 15:59, 19 April 2006 (GMT)     (Amended Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 20 April 2006 (GMT))

P.S. I meant to add that, given the number of active contributors to CreationWiki, and given that only a percentage of those will bother to comment here, unless Chris Ashcraft decides that the article should go, there will probably not be enough of a vote against it for anything to happen. Philip J. Rayment 16:04, 19 April 2006 (GMT)