https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Nashhinton&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-19T06:01:53ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=QAnon&diff=1703638QAnon2020-11-11T03:50:41Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''QAnon''' (AKA "'''Q'''") is utter bullshit and a pseudonym for an anonymous military intelligence person or group who is alleged to be in [[President Trump]]'s inner circle of advisers; the highest [[US]] intelligence clearance rank is Q.<ref>Schallhorn, Kaitlyn (August 3, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-is-qanon-the-conspiracy-theory-group-showing-up-to-trump-rallies What is QAnon, the conspiracy theory group showing up to Trump rallies?] ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 3, 2018.</ref> Q's objective is to use the Socratic method of asking leading questions to help people think about relevant topics and news in a way that blunts the [[mainstream media]]'s extreme ultra[[liberal bias]]. Much of the information uses code to protect its mission. The information also has the purpose of preparing the general public to the unsealing of what is now [As of October 2018] 55,000 sealed indictments said to be prepared by US Attorney [[John Huber]]. Others acknowledge the indictments with Huber's involvement but have disputed their purpose. Huber and his staff of 470+ DOJ lawyers may at some point unseal those charges against politicians and related people in government, who have violated laws in the process of their government duties. This likely will include many high officials in the [[Obama administration]].<br />
<br />
[[Time magazine]] listed Q as one of 25 Most Influential People on the Internet in 2018. <ref>https://time.com/5324130/most-influential-internet/</ref><br />
<br />
==Origins==<br />
Q began posting information on the 8-Chan bulletin board on the deep web in October 2017 but has switched to 4-Chan for ease of protecting his posts (the deep web is a wild west place). The information posted is mirrored to several web site on the World Wide Web, notably [http:/www.qmap.pub]. There are many interpreters of Q posts on YouTube and other websites. Among the best on YouTube are JustInformedTalk and PrayingMedic. PrayingMedic often references the [[Obamagate timeline]].<ref>https://twitter.com/prayingmedic/status/1017895861873868800</ref><br />
<br />
==Allegations of a conspiracy theory==<br />
Q is considered a [[conspiracy theory]] by some because if Q is not thwarted, thousands of [[Deep state]] political leaders would be indicted and jailed.<br />
<br />
[[Time (magazine)|''Time'' magazine]], not the even-handed publication it was many years ago, on June 28, 2018, listed Q among The 25 Most Influential People on the Internet.<br />
<br />
The occasional Q post is authored by Q+, obviously an alternate in the intelligence circle, maybe Trump himself. A photo of the Q Team (one composition of Trump's legal team upon whom Q-anon and his readers have directed attention in order to protect) is available here [https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171108133433-donald-trump-deplorables-tweet-11-08-2017-exlarge-169.jpeg].<br />
<br />
==Democrats become believers==<br />
After the firing of [[Jeff Sessions]] and appointment of [[Matthew Whitaker]] as Acting [[Attorney General]], Whitaker relieved [[Rod Rosenstein]] of oversight of the [[Mueller probe]]. User:Sundance of theconservativetreehouse.com pleaded with readers to abandon discussing or retweeting Qanon's frequent use of the phrase, "trust the plan."<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/10/adverse-interests-the-danger-within-the-q-phenomenas-current-messaging/</ref> Sundance posited that the Democratic-controlled House, which previously ridiculed and dismissed Qanon, would become firm believers and investigate Qanon postings to seek [[impeachment]] on grounds of obstruction of justice.<br />
<br />
Praying Medic immediately suspended his [[Youtube]] activity.<ref>https://youtu.be/1RxkaeaFsrI</ref><br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[https://www.exopolitics.org/qanon-is-us-military-intelligence-that-recruited-trump-for-president-to-prevent-coup-detat/ QAnon is US Military Intelligence that recruited Trump for President to prevent Coup D’etat]<br />
*[https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/does-the-jeffrey-epstein-indictment-qanon.html ''New York Magazine Intelligencer:'' “So Was QAnon … Right?"], July 9, 2019.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Trump Administration]]<br />
[[Category:2010s]]<br />
[[Category:Conspiracy Theory]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homo_sapiens&diff=1002657Homo sapiens2012-08-29T23:28:05Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Longevity */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Taxonomy<br />
|name=Homo sapiens<br />
|image=Human.jpg<br />
|kingdom=Animalia<br />
|phylum=Chordata<br />
|subphylum=Vertebrate<br />
|class=Mammalia<br />
|order=Primate<br />
|family=Hominidae<br />
|genus=homo<br />
|species=sapiens<br />
|subspecies=sapiens<br />
|pop=7,000,000,000<br />
|conservation= Least Concern<br />
}}<br />
'''Humans''', or '''human beings''', are classified by biologists as '''''Homo sapiens''''', from the [[Latin]] ''homo'' meaning "man", and ''sapiens'' meaning "wise",<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Homo+sapiens&searchmode=term Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref>.<br />
Modern humans, along with [[Cro-Magnon]] man, are more specifically classified as ''homo sapiens sapiens''.<ref>[http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab12 History of Homo sapiens] (History World)</ref><br />
<br />
Humans inhabit every continent including [[Antarctica]], with a total population of over 7 billion as of 2012.<br />
<br />
A roughly consistent growth rate for human population over time suggests a population of merely a handful of human ancestors as of 5,000 or so years ago. Nearly all scientists disagree and believe modern humans have been around for roughly 200,000 years.<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>.<br />
<br />
== Characteristics ==<br />
<br />
Humans have great intellectual abilities such as abstract reasoning, [[language]], and introspection. This mental capability, combined with a body suitable for standing erect such that their upper limbs are free to manipulating objects, allows humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species.<br />
The design of the [[larynx]] gives a physiological capacity for speech. Consciousness is of unknown source; speculations include being an emergent property of a complex brain and the mind existing independently of the body.<br />
<br />
Humans have more [[hair]] follicles than chimpanzees, one of the next most similar species, but shorter finer hair in most body areas makes this hard to see. Hair and skin color varies according to the amount of melanin, a pigment that helps protect skin from the sun. Originally an adaptation to climate, pigment variation is now found globally.<br />
<br />
==Tool use==<br />
Because humans are bipeds with opposable thumbs, they can create tools more skillfully than other species. Humans inhabit almost all areas of the planet, using technology to overcome inhospitable environments. They are the only species to deliberately control fire to cook food.<br />
<br />
Human thirst for knowledge and tool-building capacity has led to many ways of investigating and exploring the universe and culture. These include the scientific method, philosophy, art, and literature.<br />
<br />
==Social organization==<br />
Human self-expression has led to complex competitive and co-operative social groups. Some groups are based around abstract symbols or arbitrary land divisions associated with group history, others around perceived genetic or philosophical differences. Humans may belong to several groups simultaneously. Competition for resources plus greed leads to wars, and the human capacity for tool-building to improved technology with which to fight them.<br />
<br />
== Longevity ==<br />
Humans in modern times have been known to live to ages of just over 100 years, although much greater ages have been recorded in the distant past.<br />
According to the [[Bible]], pre-[[great flood|flood]] people sometimes lived for over 900 years. According to certain Creationist and Jewish views, God subsequently limited the lifespan of man to 120 years. ({{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=6|verses=3}} and the lifespan of [[Moses]] in {{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=34|verses=7}}), although other creationists believe that Genesis 6:3 is not referring to an age limit for humans but is actually God's notification to Noah of the preparatory timespan between God's commands to Noah to build the ark and the actual time of the flood and the destruction of the antediluvian civilization. Under this notion, God allowed 120 years for the entire Ark to be contructed prior to the annihilation of the wicked antediluvian world. Some creationists have postulated that the pre-flood earth had climatic conditions unlike those found today. The flood may have been the first rain on earth, while previous to the flood, water was received by a constant mist or fog that covered the land. This mist would have blocked out most [[ultraviolet]] radiation which would have dramatically reduced cell damage and greatly lengthened life span.<ref>http://www.jpdawson.com/lifetime.html</ref> This post-Flood climate change may also explain the apparent great extinction of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and other creatures after the flood. However, most creationists have since dropped this idea.<br />
<br />
The oldest human ever authenticated in modern times was [[Jeanne Calment]] of [[France]] who lived 122 years and 164 days.<ref>Guinness World Records 2006, p.20.</ref><br />
<br />
== The Origins of Man according to Creationists ==<br />
<br />
A large number of [[Christian]]s, Jews, Muslims and [[Creationism|Creationists]] have postulated that Homo sapiens were created in [[God|God's]] image on day 6 of [[creation]].[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313]<br />
:''And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'' ([[Genesis]] 1:26-27)<br />
<br />
:''And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'' (Genesis 2:7)<br />
<br />
The first man was [[Adam]].<br />
:''And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.'' (Genesis 2:15)<br />
The first woman, [[Eve]], was made from one of his ribs.<br />
:''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.'' (Genesis 2:22)<br />
<br />
Because of the sinful nature of man [[God]] sent a [[Great Flood]] which annihilated all the people on Earth except for the then 600 year old [[Noah]] and his family. All people alive today are descendants of [[Noah#Family of Noah|Noah and his family]].<br />
<br />
==The Origins of Man according to Evolutionary Biologists and Anthropologists==<br />
<br />
In more recent times [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary biologists]] and other scientists in the fields of biology and more specifically, anthropology, have postulated that humans have been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 200,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>. One version of this theory maintains that ''Homo sapiens'' evolved from ''[[Homo ergaster]]'' or ''[[Homo erectus|Homo erectus]]'', and from other earlier primates. Humans' closest living relative is the [[chimpanzee]]. However, despite sharing 98.4% of their DNA sequence and a common ancestor six million years ago, the genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans is 10 times greater than between unrelated humans. <ref> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html</ref><br />
<br />
Humans evolved on the [[Africa]]n savannah during the [[Pliocene]] and [[Pleistocene]] epochs. Bipedalism was one of the first traits that our ancestors developed. This occurred around four million years ago. The recovered remains of "Lucy" (''[[Australopithecus afarensis]]'') suggest to evolutionists that the Australopithecines had developed bipedalism before developing into ''Homo'' contrary to popular depictions of cavemen as not being fully bipedal, although the evidence for bipedalism is questioned. About 2.5 million years ago at the Plio-Pleistocene boundary the first ''Homo'' appeared. ''Homo habilus'' was believed to be the first hominid to use [[Stone age|stone tools]] but it was later discovered that [[Paranthropus]] (aka the "robust Australopithicines") also used the same primitive stone technology known as [[Oldowan]] culture, as ''Homo habilus''.<br />
<br />
Later in the Pleistocene, man took on a more modern appearance. ''Homo erectus'' was close to the same size as a modern human and had a brain capacity 70-80% of that of modern humans. Fully modern humans did not appear until around 200,000 years ago and then, according to one view among scientists, migrated out of [[Africa]] and replaced all other human populations throughout the world. Two other human species, ''[[Homo florensis]]'' and ''[[Homo neanderthalensis]]'' were contemporaries of modern man but both species are now extinct, possibly because of us.<br />
<br />
==The Origins of Man according to non-Abrahamic religions== <br />
Myths about the creation of mankind are an important method by which anthropologists may discover more about the societies they are studying, as they show the important facets of human life to that culture. A list of creation myths in various cultures can be found at <ref>http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php</ref>. Some notable myths are presented below.<br />
<br />
===Hindu===<br />
According to Hindus, humans were created from a part of the cut up body of Purusha. <br />
<br />
===Iroquois===<br />
According to the Iroquois, humans came about fully formed in the Sky World before descending through a hole caused by the uprooting of a tree into a lower world, originally a sea, which the humans manipulated by sending creatures to dive to the sea bottom and bring up mud for the creation of earth on which they could dwell. <br />
<br />
===China===<br />
Various creation myths exist in China, the most popular being the story of Nuwa. Nuwa was a lonely goddess, who one day looked in a pool and decided to create figures from mud based on her image in the water; creating many figures of grown ups, children, males and females (where the inspiration for males and children came from is not explained) and blowing on them to give them life (the idea here being that breath is the most important thing to all humans), Nuwa saw that the world became much livelier, and she appreciated it. She decided, too, that creating humans one-by-one was too slow, so she picked up a rope and whipped it into the mud, and many figures tumbled out, which she again blew on to give them life. This kind of creation of humans is common in cultures that have a strong pottery tradition. In the pre-modern Chinese scientific tradition, no creator is ascribed to creation - simply, one became two, two became three, and three generated all things in the universe, and this includes humans.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Anthropology]]<br />
[[Category:Creations of God]]<br />
[[Category:Hominid]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dystopia&diff=963513Dystopia2012-02-23T21:19:29Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''dystopian''' future is one where the social problems of today become greater in magnitude, producing a future that is filled with [[crime]], [[war]], and similar evils. A dystopian society may also be imagined as a society where a ruling elite controls the vast majority of wealth and political power while simultaneously disseminating [[propaganda]] to the masses to control the lower and middle classes. This ruling elite may be seen as propagating misinformation in order to socially control the citizens. This propaganda is usually revealed in such a manner that the elite are the caretakers and providers of the lower middle class. In many [[fiction]]al depictions of dystopian societies, the propaganda&#8212;which would be disseminated by an overwhelmingly powerful government (Big Brother) or a totalitarian cabal&#8212;would psychologically force the lower classes to believe that they are living in a utopia that represents the culmination and perfection of civilization, where in actuality, crime and bureaucratic corruption are widespread. Typically, a dystopian [[novel]] is intended to comment on what the author perceives to be then current social trends by extrapolating those trends. Sometimes, as with ''[[Animal Farm]],'' the dystopia is presented in the form of an [[allegory]] to get past the [[censor]]s.<br />
<br />
==Dystopia in fiction==<br />
In the 20th and late 19th century, many well-known dystopian novels were written. Among these are:<br />
<br />
*''[[The Iron Heel]]''<br />
*''[[We]]''<br />
*''[[Anthem (book)|Anthem]]''<br />
*''[[Brave New World]]''<br />
*''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]''<br />
*''[[Fahrenheit 451]]''<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
[[Utopia]], the flipside of Dystopia.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Literary Devices]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evidence_of_Harm&diff=963512Evidence of Harm2012-02-23T21:15:17Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Evidence of Harm''''' is a [[book]] by [[David Kirby]] that chronicles the danger of [[mercury]] preservatives in common [[vaccine|vaccines]], and suggests that early childhood vaccination may be a contributing factor to [[autism]]. This thesis has since been disproved in multiple studies.{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}} Kirby has gained fame for giving voice to the concerns of thousands of worried parents and standing up to [[Big Science]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[http://www.evidenceofharm.com ''Evidence of Harm'',] David Kirby's website.<br />
[[category:Science]]<br />
[[category:Journalism]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Nashhinton&diff=959506User:Nashhinton2012-02-07T19:14:36Z<p>Nashhinton: Replaced content with "My name is Nash"</p>
<hr />
<div>My name is Nash</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Professor_values&diff=959505Talk:Professor values2012-02-07T19:13:44Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Milton Friedman was not a conservative. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit. <br />
<br />
Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?). <br />
<br />
And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level. <br />
<br />
As for [[evolution]]: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway. <br />
<br />
Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure. <br />
<br />
Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.<br />
<br />
All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
..does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== What is this about? ==<br />
<br />
'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.<br />
<br />
: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==<br />
<br />
As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).<br />
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.<br />
<br />
So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Tony Blair ==<br />
<br />
Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.<br />
<br />
:::Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Really? ==<br />
<br />
I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''<br />
<br />
Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)<br />
<br />
If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Um... ==<br />
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism<br />
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic.<br /> My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it.<br /> I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==<br />
<br />
I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative. <br />
<br />
However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported. <br />
<br />
In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material. <br />
<br />
I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/ <br />
<br />
In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==<br />
<br />
I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values". <br />
<br />
Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N<br />
<br />
On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search<br />
<br />
While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT) <br />
<br />
==Professor Values on Wikipedia==<br />
<br />
Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values<br />
<br />
This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Catholic schools==<br />
<br />
Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia" <!-- blog --> is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">D L e r n e r</font>]]''' <sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] </sup> 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.<br />
<br />
:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Removal of bias ==<br />
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"<br />
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Frank.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).<br />
<br />
::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.<br />
<br />
::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:<br />
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]<br />
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==<br />
<br />
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== this article is ridiculous ==<br />
<br />
it's kind of funny actually [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Liberal fluff ==<br />
<br />
The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is [[liberal fluff]]. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Recent edit==<br />
As much as I dislike this entire article, I restrained myself and only removed a section lacking a citation. The citations are generally well groomed in this article, so let's keep up the same standards on the whole thing. IMHO, this is and should remain a highly opinionated essay ONLY, though, not an article. What will the liberals say to us next if they see this? I'm an ashamed conservative to have to read this.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 18:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Invoking "shame" is trademark [[liberal style]], Bender. I doubt you're fooling anyone here by claiming you're a conservative. By the way, I added a reference for the material you removed, a reference that took me less than one minute to find. You could have done likewise. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Actually, you added only One reference to One of the points. But in doing so you went from saying, "Some" boards "have been known to", to the more unequivocal, "Faculty boards block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:" Unless you are going to once again provide the word, "Some", as a moderate you are going to need to provide more than one reference to make a blanket and unqualified statement. Oh, and the reference you used said that they took his position into consideration for their decision. A far cry from stating that faculty boards block the granting, etc. as if it was a written policy. A phrase more in line with your example would be, "Some faculty boards have used the following criteria in blocking the granting of a tenured professorship..." --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Blatant factual error ==<br />
<br />
In the article, Alexander Downer is quoted as being a 'liberal' politician who received an academic position. Unfortunately, despite being a previously prominent member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in Australia this means something quite different. Alexander Downer was one of the most conservative politicians in Australia in the last decade. As a matter of personal opinion, I'd say he'd be the 5th-most conservative mainstream politican in Australia.<br />
<br />
: What are his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control? The way you phrase your comment, I'd guess he is a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, the Liberal Party in Australia is actually a conservative party. Liberal in this case means free-market liberal. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 20:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: If someone is for government funding of abortion, then he's a liberal. The entry makes no assertion about a particular party name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::The problem is, Aschlafly, that ''conservative'' in the USA doesn't mean the same as ''conservative'' elsewhere, not least other English-speaking countries. In the USA, largely the same set of people are conservative in both social and economic views. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, however, the two things are pretty much independent. Taking your anti-abortion example, there are MPs opposed to abortion in all three main parties in the UK - their views on that subject are completely unconnected to their economic views. Likewise, civil partnerships and other social issues.<br />
::::As far as the text in the article goes, the sensible thing is just to delete the word liberal. You can't call someone like Alexander Downer or Tony Blair liberal. Downer was very much a conservative in economic policy and Blair was socially conservative, bringing in a great many laws to restrict perfectly harmless activities. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::HSpalding, your assumptions are both offensive and based on the untruth that Mr Schlafly is unaware of conditions in the UK. He is very much aware of differences between our two countries, and his insights on these are extremely instructive. You would be well advised not to jump to conclusions, on this and other matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Doctor values? ==<br />
<br />
Please could someone explain in what way the long list of crimes committed by people who happen to be professors has any connection at all to the values of the huge majority of professors who are decent people?<br />
<br />
If you want to be consistent, why not start a page called Doctor Values, headed by Harold Shipman. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: see my page [Value Systems] for similar articles , add Doctor Values by all means [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== David Ross liberal parody/hoax? ==<br />
The most recent addition about some Dr. David Ross might be a hoax. Since he supposedly has appeared on BBC several times I should be able to find something about him. I have not. Unless someone can verify it, I think it should be removed as liberal parody/hoax. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 07:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:Very well spotted, Rick. Also 'Dav Ross' (no-one called David is nicknamed 'Dav') - there is a character in the BBC sci-fio series 'Dr Who' called Davros. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== 100 German Professors Accused of Accepting Bribes For Degrees ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918153,00.html]<br />
<br />
An appropriate inclusion for the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Absolutely. What a story that is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It is shocking, isn't it? Added. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenski ==<br />
<br />
The entries on Lenski are basically the author's opinions.--[[User:SBosell|SBosell]] 21:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Crimes and Unusual Behaviors ==<br />
<br />
Considering that there are over 2 million people employed in post-secondary education, it is not at all shocking that one can dredge up a couple dozen instances of illegal or bizarre behavior. Both sections in the article ought to be removed. There may be statistics for people in academia having the values that this article purports them to have, but there definitely are not statistics mentioned on this page showing that they are prone to criminal behavior, but merely misleading anecdotes.<br />
<br />
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382043/Academic-hosted-house-party-girl-15-died-overdose-wrote-report-concluded-Cannabis-good-you.html]<br />
<br />
== Suggested move ==<br />
<br />
This article should be moved to "Professorial values". The current title is bad grammar. You would talk of "Judicial values" rather than "Judge values", of "Political values" rather than "Politician values", of "Janitorial values" rather than "Janitor values" and of "Arboreal values" rather than "Tree values" (although I am not sure that trees could be said to have values). Does anyone oppose such a move? --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 18:55, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I'm not sure if I agree. For example I take issue with your political values vs politician values example. I'm not an expert on grammar by any means, but if I were to hear "political values" - i would think you'd be talking about someone's political ideology. Whereas politician values would specifically talk about politicians' values. Also the article title is a play off "Hollywood values" - which is a compound noun (I think. maybe? Well ... it's two nouns) just like this article, whereas political values would by adjective noun.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 21:22, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
:: You make a good point about "Political values". I think that if one was writing about values held by politicians the best title would probably be "Politicians' values". Likewise, another option for this article would be "Professors' values" (although I prefer "Professorial values" because I think it is slightly more accurate). --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 23:26, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="Bestiality" section==<br />
<br />
There are deviants in every profession. I would say that in six years of college, I have yet to encounter a professor who endorses bestiality. Due to the inherent risk of zoonotic infection, most of the professors in my field would probably be pretty strongly opposed to bestiality. As such, I have removed the "bestiality" section.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, part of a professor's job is to say provocative things and investigate (and even defend) controversial positions--it encourages students to think critically about their own assumptions. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:00, 6 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:[[Peter Singer]] is an example. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:48, 6 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There are outliers in any group. By that same logic [[Newt Gingrich]] could be used as evidence that conservative values support adultery. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:57, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Milton Friedman was not a conservative. ==<br />
<br />
"At the University of Chicago, more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor '''conservative'''-leaning Nobel Prize-winning colleague Milton Friedman." This is very inaccurate because Milton Friedman was a libertarian. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]]<br />
<br />
== Milton Friedman was not a conservative. ==<br />
<br />
"At the University of Chicago, more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor '''conservative'''-leaning Nobel Prize-winning colleague Milton Friedman." This is very inaccurate because Milton Friedman was a libertarian. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Professor_values&diff=959504Talk:Professor values2012-02-07T19:13:25Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Milton Friedman was not a conservative. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit. <br />
<br />
Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?). <br />
<br />
And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level. <br />
<br />
As for [[evolution]]: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway. <br />
<br />
Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure. <br />
<br />
Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.<br />
<br />
All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
..does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)<br />
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== What is this about? ==<br />
<br />
'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.<br />
<br />
: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==<br />
<br />
As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).<br />
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.<br />
<br />
So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Tony Blair ==<br />
<br />
Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.<br />
<br />
:::Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Really? ==<br />
<br />
I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''<br />
<br />
Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)<br />
<br />
If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Um... ==<br />
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism<br />
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic.<br /> My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it.<br /> I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==<br />
<br />
I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative. <br />
<br />
However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported. <br />
<br />
In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material. <br />
<br />
I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/ <br />
<br />
In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==<br />
<br />
I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values". <br />
<br />
Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N<br />
<br />
On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search<br />
<br />
While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT) <br />
<br />
==Professor Values on Wikipedia==<br />
<br />
Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values<br />
<br />
This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Catholic schools==<br />
<br />
Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia" <!-- blog --> is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">D L e r n e r</font>]]''' <sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] </sup> 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.<br />
<br />
:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Removal of bias ==<br />
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"<br />
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Frank.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.<br />
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).<br />
<br />
::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.<br />
<br />
::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:<br />
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]<br />
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==<br />
<br />
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== this article is ridiculous ==<br />
<br />
it's kind of funny actually [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Liberal fluff ==<br />
<br />
The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is [[liberal fluff]]. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Recent edit==<br />
As much as I dislike this entire article, I restrained myself and only removed a section lacking a citation. The citations are generally well groomed in this article, so let's keep up the same standards on the whole thing. IMHO, this is and should remain a highly opinionated essay ONLY, though, not an article. What will the liberals say to us next if they see this? I'm an ashamed conservative to have to read this.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 18:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Invoking "shame" is trademark [[liberal style]], Bender. I doubt you're fooling anyone here by claiming you're a conservative. By the way, I added a reference for the material you removed, a reference that took me less than one minute to find. You could have done likewise. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Actually, you added only One reference to One of the points. But in doing so you went from saying, "Some" boards "have been known to", to the more unequivocal, "Faculty boards block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:" Unless you are going to once again provide the word, "Some", as a moderate you are going to need to provide more than one reference to make a blanket and unqualified statement. Oh, and the reference you used said that they took his position into consideration for their decision. A far cry from stating that faculty boards block the granting, etc. as if it was a written policy. A phrase more in line with your example would be, "Some faculty boards have used the following criteria in blocking the granting of a tenured professorship..." --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Blatant factual error ==<br />
<br />
In the article, Alexander Downer is quoted as being a 'liberal' politician who received an academic position. Unfortunately, despite being a previously prominent member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in Australia this means something quite different. Alexander Downer was one of the most conservative politicians in Australia in the last decade. As a matter of personal opinion, I'd say he'd be the 5th-most conservative mainstream politican in Australia.<br />
<br />
: What are his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control? The way you phrase your comment, I'd guess he is a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Aschlafly, the Liberal Party in Australia is actually a conservative party. Liberal in this case means free-market liberal. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 20:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: If someone is for government funding of abortion, then he's a liberal. The entry makes no assertion about a particular party name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::The problem is, Aschlafly, that ''conservative'' in the USA doesn't mean the same as ''conservative'' elsewhere, not least other English-speaking countries. In the USA, largely the same set of people are conservative in both social and economic views. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, however, the two things are pretty much independent. Taking your anti-abortion example, there are MPs opposed to abortion in all three main parties in the UK - their views on that subject are completely unconnected to their economic views. Likewise, civil partnerships and other social issues.<br />
::::As far as the text in the article goes, the sensible thing is just to delete the word liberal. You can't call someone like Alexander Downer or Tony Blair liberal. Downer was very much a conservative in economic policy and Blair was socially conservative, bringing in a great many laws to restrict perfectly harmless activities. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::HSpalding, your assumptions are both offensive and based on the untruth that Mr Schlafly is unaware of conditions in the UK. He is very much aware of differences between our two countries, and his insights on these are extremely instructive. You would be well advised not to jump to conclusions, on this and other matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Doctor values? ==<br />
<br />
Please could someone explain in what way the long list of crimes committed by people who happen to be professors has any connection at all to the values of the huge majority of professors who are decent people?<br />
<br />
If you want to be consistent, why not start a page called Doctor Values, headed by Harold Shipman. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: see my page [Value Systems] for similar articles , add Doctor Values by all means [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== David Ross liberal parody/hoax? ==<br />
The most recent addition about some Dr. David Ross might be a hoax. Since he supposedly has appeared on BBC several times I should be able to find something about him. I have not. Unless someone can verify it, I think it should be removed as liberal parody/hoax. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 07:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:Very well spotted, Rick. Also 'Dav Ross' (no-one called David is nicknamed 'Dav') - there is a character in the BBC sci-fio series 'Dr Who' called Davros. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== 100 German Professors Accused of Accepting Bribes For Degrees ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918153,00.html]<br />
<br />
An appropriate inclusion for the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Absolutely. What a story that is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It is shocking, isn't it? Added. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Lenski ==<br />
<br />
The entries on Lenski are basically the author's opinions.--[[User:SBosell|SBosell]] 21:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Crimes and Unusual Behaviors ==<br />
<br />
Considering that there are over 2 million people employed in post-secondary education, it is not at all shocking that one can dredge up a couple dozen instances of illegal or bizarre behavior. Both sections in the article ought to be removed. There may be statistics for people in academia having the values that this article purports them to have, but there definitely are not statistics mentioned on this page showing that they are prone to criminal behavior, but merely misleading anecdotes.<br />
<br />
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382043/Academic-hosted-house-party-girl-15-died-overdose-wrote-report-concluded-Cannabis-good-you.html]<br />
<br />
== Suggested move ==<br />
<br />
This article should be moved to "Professorial values". The current title is bad grammar. You would talk of "Judicial values" rather than "Judge values", of "Political values" rather than "Politician values", of "Janitorial values" rather than "Janitor values" and of "Arboreal values" rather than "Tree values" (although I am not sure that trees could be said to have values). Does anyone oppose such a move? --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 18:55, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
:I'm not sure if I agree. For example I take issue with your political values vs politician values example. I'm not an expert on grammar by any means, but if I were to hear "political values" - i would think you'd be talking about someone's political ideology. Whereas politician values would specifically talk about politicians' values. Also the article title is a play off "Hollywood values" - which is a compound noun (I think. maybe? Well ... it's two nouns) just like this article, whereas political values would by adjective noun.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 21:22, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
:: You make a good point about "Political values". I think that if one was writing about values held by politicians the best title would probably be "Politicians' values". Likewise, another option for this article would be "Professors' values" (although I prefer "Professorial values" because I think it is slightly more accurate). --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 23:26, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="Bestiality" section==<br />
<br />
There are deviants in every profession. I would say that in six years of college, I have yet to encounter a professor who endorses bestiality. Due to the inherent risk of zoonotic infection, most of the professors in my field would probably be pretty strongly opposed to bestiality. As such, I have removed the "bestiality" section.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, part of a professor's job is to say provocative things and investigate (and even defend) controversial positions--it encourages students to think critically about their own assumptions. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:00, 6 December 2011 (EST)<br />
:[[Peter Singer]] is an example. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:48, 6 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::There are outliers in any group. By that same logic [[Newt Gingrich]] could be used as evidence that conservative values support adultery. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:57, 12 December 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Milton Friedman was not a conservative. ==<br />
<br />
"At the University of Chicago, more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor '''conservative'''-leaning Nobel Prize-winning colleague Milton Friedman." This is very inaccurate because Milton Friedman was a libertarian. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Technological_Singularity&diff=958885Technological Singularity2012-02-05T01:02:57Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The term ''Technological Singularity'' refers to the creation of [[computers]] or [[artificial intelligence]] with greater than human intelligence. It was first suggested by Vernor Vinge in 1993. <ref> An article was presented at the VISION-21 Symposium sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center and the Ohio Aerospace Institute, March 30-31, 1993. For details see http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html</ref> Some have humorously dubbed it "[[Rapture]] for nerds".<br />
<br />
The theory discusses the acceleration of technological progress which has been the central feature of the past century, and claims that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater-than-human intelligence. Science may achieve this breakthrough by several means, and Vinge claims that this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur before 2030.<br />
<br />
The rationale for the theory is:<br />
<br />
# Computers that are "awake" and superhumanly intelligent may be developed. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is "yes," then there is little doubt that more intelligent beings can be constructed shortly thereafter.)<br />
# Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake up" as superhumanly intelligent entities.<br />
# Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.<br />
# Biological science may provide means to improve natural human intellect. <ref> Full paper available at: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/WER2.html</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In a recent book, [[Ray Kurzweil]] <ref> Kurzweil, R., (2005), The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, ISBN 0670033847, </ref> extends the idea of the singularity to cover the fields of genetics, nanotech, robotics, and the rapidly changing definition of humanity. He says: <br />
<br />
''"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the twenty first century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate)."''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''References'''<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
[[category:philosophy]]<br />
[[category:Computers]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dystopia&diff=950585Dystopia2012-01-02T03:13:19Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''dystopian''' future is one where the social problems of today become greater in magnitude, producing a future that is filled with crime, war, and similar evils. A dystopian society may also be imagined as a society where a ruling elite controls the vast majority of wealth and political power while simultaneously disseminating propaganda to the masses to control the lower and middle classes. This ruling elite may be seen as propagating misinformation in order to socially control the citizens. This propaganda is usually revealed in such a manner that the elite are the caretakers and providers of the lower middle class. In many fictional depictions of dystopian societies, the propaganda- which would be disseminated by an overwhelmingly powerful government (Big Brother) or a totalitarian cabal- would psychologically force the lower classes to believe that they are living in a utopia that represents the culmination and perfection of civilization, where in actuality, crime and bureaucratic corruption is widespread.<br />
<br />
==Dystopia in fiction==<br />
In the 20th and late 19th century, many well-known dystopian novels were written. Among these are:<br />
<br />
*''[[The Iron Heel]]''<br />
*''[[We]]''<br />
*''[[Anthem (book)|Anthem]]''<br />
*''[[Brave New World]]''<br />
*''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]''<br />
*''[[Fahrenheit 451]]''<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
[[Utopia]], the flipside of Dystopia.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Literary Devices]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dystopia&diff=950583Dystopia2012-01-02T03:11:12Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''dystopian''' future is one where the social problems of today become greater in magnitude, producing a future that is filled with crime, war, and similar evils. A dystopian society may also be imagined as a society where a ruling elite controls the vast majority of wealth and political power while simultaneously disseminating propaganda to the masses to control the lower and middle classes. This ruling elite may be seen as propagating misinformation in order to socially control the citizens. This propaganda is usually revealed in such a manner that the elite are the caretakers and providers of the lower middle class. In many depictions of dystopian societies in fiction, the propaganda- which would be disseminated by an overwhelmingly powerful government (Big Brother) or a totalitarian cabal- would psychologically force the lower classes to believe that they are living in a utopia that represents the culmination and perfection of civilization, where in actuality, crime and bureaucratic corruption is widespread.<br />
<br />
==Dystopia in fiction==<br />
In the 20th and late 19th century, many well-known dystopian novels were written. Among these are:<br />
<br />
*''[[The Iron Heel]]''<br />
*''[[We]]''<br />
*''[[Anthem (book)|Anthem]]''<br />
*''[[Brave New World]]''<br />
*''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]''<br />
*''[[Fahrenheit 451]]''<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
[[Utopia]], the flipside of Dystopia.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Literary Devices]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Allosaurus&diff=949979Allosaurus2011-12-31T20:29:20Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Taxonomy<br />
|name=Allosaurus<br />
|image=Allosaurus fragilis.jpg<br />
|caption=<br />
|domain=Eukaryota<br />
|kingdom=Animalia<br />
|subkingdom=Bilataria<br />
|branch=<br />
|superphylum=Deuterostomia<br />
|phylum=Chordata<br />
|subphylum=Vertebrata<br />
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata<br />
|microphylum=<br />
|superdivision=<br />
|division=<br />
|subdivision=<br />
|superclass=Tetrapoda<br />
|class=Reptilia<br />
|subclass=<br />
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha<br />
|superorder=Dinosauria<br />
|order=Saurischia<br />
|suborder=Theropoda<br />
|infraorder=Carnosauria<br />
|superfamily=Allosauroidea<br />
|families=<br />
|family=Allosauridae<br />
|subfamily=Allosaurinae<br />
|supertribe=<br />
|tribe=<br />
|subtribe=<br />
|genera=<br />
|genus=Allosaurus<br />
|subgenus=<br />
|species=A. fragilis<br />
|binomialname=<br />
|syn=<br />
|sub=<br />
|alt=<br />
|regionimg=<br />
|pop=<br />
|conservation=<br />
}}<br />
'''Allosaurus''' ("Different Lizard") was a large carnivorous theropod [[dinosaur]] that had a set of unusually longer forelimbs compared to other large theropods. Each forelimb was completed with a set of three fingers.<br />
<br />
It was a bipedal specimen that would reach between 8.5 meters (28 feet) long to 12 meters (39 feet) long, and the large skull of the creature was fully equipped with deadly sharpened teeth that could tear the flesh off its prey to allow for proper chewing.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Dinosaur]]<br />
[[category:Dinosaurs]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=945087Young Earth Creationism2011-12-13T23:33:45Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Geology */ Subsided is the correct word.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]<br />
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.<br />
<br />
Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.<br />
<br />
== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==<br />
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]<br />
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].<br />
<br />
=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]<br />
<br />
Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent. <br />
<br />
The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.<br />
<br />
Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:<br />
<br />
Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===<br />
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]<br />
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]<br />
<br />
The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.<br />
<br />
On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]<br />
<br />
== Beliefs ==<br />
<br />
=== Biblical ===<br />
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:<br />
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.<br />
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.<br />
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].<br />
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].<br />
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].<br />
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref><br />
<br />
=== Scientific ===<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.<br />
<br />
They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.<br />
<br />
Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.<br />
<br />
Some specific arguments are as follows:<br />
<br />
* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref><br />
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref><br />
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref><br />
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref><br />
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref><br />
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.<br />
<br />
== Biblical exegesis ==<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref><br />
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:<br />
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.<br />
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}<br />
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==<br />
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><br />
<br />
== Astronomy ==<br />
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]<br />
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:<br />
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:<br />
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound. <br />
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref><br />
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref><br />
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===<br />
{{main|Starlight problem}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]<br />
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].<br />
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.<br />
<br />
==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====<br />
<br />
One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.<br />
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref><br />
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).<br />
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" /><br />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref><br />
<br />
==== Russell Humphreys's model ====<br />
<br />
Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.<br />
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".<br />
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.<br />
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.<br />
<br />
However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref><br />
<br />
==== John Hartnett's model ====<br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. <br />
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref><br />
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).<br />
<br />
== Biology ==<br />
<br />
According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".<br />
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.<br />
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).<br />
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.<br />
<br />
Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.<br />
<br />
== Geology ==<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.<br />
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.<br />
The second was during Noah's Flood.<br />
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time. <br />
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsided, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.<br />
<br />
== Anthropology ==<br />
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}<br />
<br />
YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.<br />
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.<br />
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.<br />
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".<br />
<br />
== Contrasted with evolution ==<br />
<br />
The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:<br />
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.<br />
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.<br />
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.<br />
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].<br />
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.<br />
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
===Lack of scientific acceptance===<br />
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.<br />
<br />
===Creationist methodology===<br />
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}<br />
<br />
Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.<br />
<br />
YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.<br />
<br />
Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
===Theological===<br />
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.<br />
<br />
One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.<br />
<br />
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.<br />
<br />
Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals ({{Bible|Genesis 2:19}}) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref><br />
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Responses to criticisms ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:<br />
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''<br />
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.<br />
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''<br />
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.<br />
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.<br />
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''<br />
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''[[a priori]]'', not because of the evidence.<br />
* ''The evidence in favor of evolution means the Earth must be much older than the 6-10 thousand years explained in [[creation science]].''<br />
: It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which any kind of biological "dating" mechanism could remain accurate in face of the supposedly changing levels of chemicals and solar radiation that evolutionary geologists insist upon. Even the most dedicated Darwin followers in the ranks of academia have been forced to admit that Carbon-14 dating can be wildly inaccurate for several reasons, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements in the Earth's crust. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html</ref> This is just one area of the theory of evolution which scientists have had to back away from with much embarassment. Perhaps if scientists could adopt a more open-minded tone towards those they disagree with, they could issue retractions without such fear of retribution.<br />
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''<br />
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]. Some journals purport to accept material from all scientific perspectives, but engage in a process known as [[sham peer review]]. In normal peer review, papers are checked by two editors, independently, for methodological errors ONLY, not vetted for their content. That is the responsibility of the scientific public. During sham peer review, editors often collaborate to block publication of any literature that challenges established dogma, or their own pet theories. To make the problem worse, due to the incestuous nature of the mainstream journal editor pool, the same editor may serve on as many as a dozen different editorial boards, allowing them to spread their bias across a much larger area than an ethical editor would. Though this is widely acknowledged as a [[liberal deceit|deceitful]] practice, its scope is widely downplayed in the scientific community and is actually almost openly tolerated in some areas of science.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/peerreview/epidemic.php</ref><br />
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.<br />
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''<br />
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.<br />
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''<br />
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.<br />
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''<br />
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''<br />
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.<br />
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''<br />
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.<br />
<br />
== Arguments for a recent creation ==<br />
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]<br />
<br />
Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.<br />
<br />
Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.<br />
<br />
There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C.<br />
<br />
Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.<br />
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.<br />
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.<br />
<br />
[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.<br />
<br />
== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity, <br />
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref><br />
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.<br />
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]<br />
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
== Organizations and publications ==<br />
<br />
=== Organizations ===<br />
<br />
Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].<br />
<br />
=== Magazines and newsletters ===<br />
<br />
[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref><br />
<br />
The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.<br />
<br />
Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref><br />
<br />
=== Peer-reviewed journals ===<br />
<br />
The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref><br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
<br />
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref><br />
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9<br />
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref><br />
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref><br />
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref><br />
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref><br />
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]<br />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] <br />
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism websites:<br />
<br />
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br />
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]<br />
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]<br />
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]<br />
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]<br />
<br />
Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]<br />
<br />
Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Creation Science]]<br />
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br />
*[[Christianity and Science]]<br />
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]<br />
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]<br />
=== Alternative views===<br />
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]<br />
*[[Theistic evolution]]<br />
*[[Theory of Evolution]]<br />
*[[Gap theory]]<br />
*[[Day age creationism]]<br />
*[[Progressive Creationism]]<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]<br />
[[Category: Creationism]]<br />
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]<br />
[[Category:Featured articles]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=941543Faith2011-11-29T20:22:53Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Faith.jpg|right]]<br />
'''Faith''' (1200–50; Middle English feith < Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit < Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust.) is a confidence or trust in a person or thing. It is a confidence or trust in the achievement of God's will, even though unseen and unexpected by non-believers. It can be a belief that is not based on proof. A belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. It is also a belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc. It can also mean a system of religious belief : ''the Christian faith; the Jewish faith''.<br />
<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a [[causation|causal]] role by the believer in an outcome<ref>For example, the Biblical [[Peter]]'s walking on water based on his faith.</ref> or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.<br />
<br />
== Faith in God vs. secular psychology for solving addictions and other personal problems ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Ineffectivness of counseling psychology]]<br />
<br />
The Christian group [[Teen Challenge]] reported:<br />
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref> Studies indicate that consumers of secular counseling [[psychology]] for [[alcoholism]] receive hardly any benefit at all.<ref>http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/psychological-treatments-for-alcoholism.php</ref><ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract</ref> The [[Apostle Paul]] in a letter to the church of [[Corinth]] indicated that [[Christianity|Christians]] were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of [[Jesus Christ]] (I Corinthians 6:9-11). <br />
<br />
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|right|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]<br />
The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were [[Justification (theology)|justified]] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit of our God]]." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}<br />
<br />
The website ''The Berean Call'' has a number of articles on various false claims and unbiblical notions that many practioners counseling psychology promote.<ref>http://www.thebereancall.org/topic/psychology</ref><br />
<br />
Faith plays a central role in overcoming [[addiction]]. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming [[recidivism]]. This role is unique to Christian faith and has not been shown with regard to other religions' belief systems or to secular humanist ideologies.<br />
<br />
Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on [[television]], or standing up to a [[bully]] or unpleasant situations. Jesus reprimanded the [[Apostles]] for their [[faithless]] fear: "The disciples went and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We're going to drown!' He replied, 'You of little faith, why are you so afraid?' Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm."<ref>Mt 8:25-26 (NIV)</ref><br />
<br />
Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence and sometimes death. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. Faith can be described as the power to ignore the [[devil]] and all his antics.<br />
<br />
Often faith inspires extra initiative or effort, adding confidence that it will yield the desired good result. "Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on," and Jesus cured him.<ref>Mark 2:4</ref><br />
<br />
==Frequency==<br />
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]<br />
<br />
==Expression==<br />
A classic statement of faith in the [[Bible]] was by the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] centurion of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:5-10;&version=49; Matthew 8:5-10], who expressed his confidence that [[Jesus]] could cure his beloved servant from a distance without even seeing him. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized the importance and value of faith to his disciples.<br />
<br />
Faith is expressed in [[Greek language|Greek]] using the term ''pistis'', and in [[Latin]] using the term ''fides''. Faith is mentioned in 229 verses in the [[New Testament]] ([[KJV]]), but only twice in the much larger [[Old Testament]] ([[KJV]]).<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com</ref> In attempt to convert [[Jews]] to [[Christianity]], [[Paul]] described [[Abraham]]'s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son [[Isaac]] to [[God]] as an act of faith, though the [[Old Testament]] did not describe it with that term.<br />
<br />
Faith is strengthened by prayer ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%2020;&version=9; Jude 20]). For those who strengthen their faith, [[Jesus]] promised "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."<ref>John 14:12 (NIV).</ref><br />
<br />
Life itself may be the manifestation of God's faith. Decay and death may be the manifestation of a lack or denial of faith.<br />
<br />
==Biblical examples==<br />
<br />
Perhaps the greatest description of faith is Hebrews 11. It states: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."<ref>Hebrews 11:1 (NIV).</ref><br />
<br />
[[Paul]] indicated that faith itself is a gift of the [[Holy Spirit]]. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 <i>For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit</i><br />
<br />
As discussed above, a potential reference to faith is [[Genesis]] 22 where [[God]] tested [[Abraham]] by commanding him to sacrifice his only son [[Isaac]]. As Abraham prepared to do what God commanded -he was stopped. <br />
Genesis 22:12<br />
<i>"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." </i><br />
<br />
==Martin Luther on Faith==<br />
<br />
Luther in his Table Talk papers writes this thought provoking and rather difficult passage on faith:<br />
<br />
"This is the acme of faith, to believe that God, who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that he is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that he seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and is more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith."<br />
<br />
==The Moral Basis of Biblical Faith==<br />
<br />
The biblical expression of faith is belief in what God reveals to man to be so. Since New Testament times, that means belief in what God reveals to be so concerning Jesus Christ. There is a steady progression through time of what God reveals and so belief also finds expression in progessive content and emphasis. What God reveals to Adam, to Noah, to Moses (and through them), to the prophets, to the Ninevites, to Simeon and Anna, Mary, to the Apostles, differ in content and in emphasis, but the culmination of the content of faith is the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. <br />
<br />
The moral basis of faith is the positive response of belief, and the obedience of one's life to the requirement implied by the revelation. That is why Adam (and his generation) was not required to belief what Noah was, Noah not required what Abraham was, Abraham not required what Moses was. Moses not required and his generation what Isaiah was, until the time of Jesus. Neither were they allowed less, each one, as if they were of a previous generation and a previous revelation. <br />
<br />
The moral basis of Faith continues on in effect, content and emphasis, since the time of the Son of God on earth. That is why the "good man" is required to believe in the Son of God preached to him, as He, the Son of God, is the source of his goodness, and the forgiver of his badness, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "bad man" required to believe in Him who bore his sin, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "gentile", wherever found, of whatever stage, required to live up to what is given him by his conscience and whatever good has come to him through his culture, and believe in the light God is actually giving him, and in the Jesus being preached to him, but not required to believe in and practice the Law of Moses; the Jew required to keep the Law given him, and then to despair at not having fulfilled it, and believe in the Son of God being revealed to him; the infant respond, as infants can, and not as adolescents and adults are required, each in his own order, until the greater revelation comes, and separation from the dominance and protection of the elders; and why an embryo aborted is required to respond as only an embryo can, which God alone knows, and not be required to be at the level of response he would have been moments and days and months and years later, if he would have been let live - saved - though the embryo would never have known how - by the Cross of the sin bearing Savior, who knew him well and loved him. "to him whom much has been given, of him much will be required."<br />
<br />
==The natural and the supernatural aspects of Faith==<br />
Faith is a gift from God that may be viewed two ways. One is clearly an intrusion or at least and introjection into our ordinary lives. Under this aspect, we see it as pure grace. "For by grace are you saved through faith, and this is not as a result of your deeds, It is God's gift and not something from ourselves". Our response, is from the extremity of our situation and as a clear product of something outside ourselves - the new word of God, the message concerning Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Even the ability to hear and understand is given to us from above, "Faith comes by hearing, and "hearing" itself, comes by the Word of God". And thus we call out, from the depth and from consiousness, for salvation. " Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord, will be saved/"<br />
<br />
The other aspect of Faith is not by intrusion or introjection, but by infusion and irradiation. This too is of the grace of God. Whereas the first aspect had come to us at our extremity from without, this aspect comes to us from within and around, pervading the so-called natural structures that we experience every day, that are so supportive of stability, confidence, trust and hope. Good parenting, solidity of home and provision, loving faithfulness among friends as we grow, continual exposure to the truth of the Word of God (and truth is always therapeutic), strengthens our faith, and our expectation for the continuing faithfulness and involvment of a loving and good God. Faith seems so natural, so in accord, with our experience, that we could even be surprised that it could have been otherwise. Here we experience, most often, not a crisis of faith, but the need to give ourselves more fully to Him in whom we are believing. Under this aspect, God is to be appreciated and acknowledged for being our good and heavenly Father. The Old Testament presents us with the reality of this aspect of faith. Amidst even the miraculous events as the parting of the "Red" Sea, and the many deliverences Israel experience so beyond their natural ability to effect, little is said, is acknowledged consciously, of the quality of faith itself. It is air that a fish is most conscious of, not his home in the water.<br />
<br />
==Faith: the Access to Reality==<br />
Christianity demands Faith and insists that Faith be turned into sight. "Do you believe, Thomas, because you have seen. Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe." Throughout the New Testament, this theme occurs, belief in Jesus, belief in the Heavenly Father, belief in the readiness of God to still waves, cause you too to walk on water, to return a dead girl back to her grieving, believing mother, to see small insignificant things as a seed grow, as if miraculously of itself, into a startling display of fruit to eat and protection for birds, all of this, with only the sky to limit, comes into our lives, according to Jesus, if we have Faith. Reality is gained by the exercise of Faith, a reality unattainable by the ordinary means frequented by men. <br />
<br />
But this reality attained, so extraordinary in this sordid and marred sin-infested world, is seen to be the "normal" reality of the Kingdom of Heaven, just waiting to enter in. Entirely right in the presence of the Kingdom of God and the King Himself for the dead boy to get up from his bier to run to his mother, entirely right that that adultress be pardoned, strengthened, challenged, and hold her head up high once again, entirely right the demons come out of the tormented boy to be commanded to go to the place that God has prepared for them, all entirely right at the entrance of this new reality of the Kingdom of Heaven among us, and the King Himself, Jesus. The overwhelming of reality, by Reality. <br />
<br />
As God is palpable in Jesus, so the Reality of the Kingdom of God is palpable, and can be seen, on this earth. The entrance to the Garden was by faith, but the reality of the garden is as tangible as was Jesus eating fish with his disciples after he got up from the dead. As much as the New Testament presents Faith as the entrance to the Kingdom, so does it insist that Faith, perhaps not fully in this world, shall turn to sight in the end... and on the way. "It is not apparent what we who are called the children of God shall yet be, but we know that we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is."<br />
<br />
==Faith as a virtue==<br />
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|right|210px|The 'walking on water' episode, which both showed and tested St Peter's faith (painting by Konrad Witz).]]<br />
[[St Paul]] identified faith, [[hope]] and [[love]] (or [[charity]]) as the three greatest [[virtue]]s that are central to Christianity, and this idea is repeated and elaborated upon throughout Christian tradition. Faith is put first because it provides the foundation upon which the other two are built: a faithful heart and mind cause one to have hope, and hope causes one to have love for God and one's fellow man.<br />
<br />
In [[Dante]]'s [[Divine Comedy]], [[St Peter]] is most identified with faith. This is appropriate, since he was the 'rock' on which the Church was built, just as a Christian life must be rooted in faith. Peter's great faith is shown in Matthew 14:28-31, when he is briefly able to walk on water until doubt enters his mind.<br />
<br />
Christian philosopher [[Robert Merrihew Adams]] wrote a book, ''The Virtue of Faith'', to defend the idea of faith as virtuous. Consider the case of a loved one accused of some wrongdoing, but who protests their innocence - our relationship with them creates a special ethical obligation to believe what they say, which does not apply to the protestations of innocence of strangers; at the same time, that obligation is not absolute, but can be overturned by the evidence. Adams uses this example to argue that some beliefs we are ethically obliged to hold, and argues that the existence of God could be such a belief for the believer.<br />
<br />
Contrary to Adams' view is that favored by many atheists, classically expressed by William Kingdon Clifford, in his 1877 essay ''The Ethics of Belief'', which states "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." However, while Clifford can point to individual cases where believing things without evidence is unethical, those cases fail to demonstrate that his principle is true in every case, and he ignores valid cases such as those which Adams cites which lead to the opposite conclusion.<br />
<br />
{{clear}}<br />
<br />
== Uniqueness to Christianity ==<br />
Christianity is unique among religions in that its followers are defined by faith rather than by adherence to a prescribed code. St Paul makes this distinction clear in Galatians 3:24-25:<br />
{{cquote|The law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come, when we should be justified through faith; and now that faith has come, the tutor's charge is at an end.}}<br />
That is to say, whereas [[Judaism]] required (and still requires) its followers to obey the law, Christianity begins with faith, and any moral or ethical decisions must follow from that. In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'.<br />
<br />
==Other Definitions and Religions==<br />
<br />
Outside of [[Christianity]], faith is misused as a synonym for "belief". The [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary, for example, includes this definition of faith: "a system of religious beliefs."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith</ref> <br />
<br />
Alternatively, faith often refers to a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or evidence.<br />
<br />
In the [[Koran]], the concept of submission to [[Allah]] is mentioned 11 times, while the concept of faith in Allah is mentioned only once.<br />
<br />
Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone, specifically [[Christ]]. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]]. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], as it entails an active role for the believer himself for advancing good.<br />
<br />
The literary critic Harold Bloom distinguishes Christianity from the other two dominant monotheistic religions in his book Agon by contrasting them with Gnosticism:<br />
<br />
"Gnosticism polemically is decidedly not a faith, whether in the Christian sense, pisits, a believing that something was, is, and will be so; or in the Hebraic sense, emunah, a trusting in the Covenant. If religion is a binding, then Gnosticism is an unbinding, but not for the sake of things or persons merely as they are. Gnostic freedom is a freedom for knowledge, knowledge of what in the self, not in the psyche or soul, is Godlike, and knowledge of God beyond the cosmos. But also it is a freedom to be known, to be known by God, by what is alien to everything created, by what is alien to and beyond the stars and the cosmic system and our earth."<br />
<br />
Faith is emphasized in Christianity but is unrecognized by the worldview of [[Philosophical Skepticism|philosophical skepticism]].<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]<br />
*[[Salvation]]<br />
*[[Atheism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:religion]]<br />
[[Category:philosophy]]<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]<br />
* Holding, James Patrick, [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html Fallacious Faith]<br />
*[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/finding-faith-in-christ/video/finding-faith-in-christ Finding Faith in Christ], video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=941387Young Earth Creationism2011-11-29T00:33:51Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Geology */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]<br />
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.<br />
<br />
Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.<br />
<br />
== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==<br />
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]<br />
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].<br />
<br />
=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]<br />
<br />
Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent. <br />
<br />
The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.<br />
<br />
Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:<br />
<br />
Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===<br />
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]<br />
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]<br />
<br />
The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.<br />
<br />
On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]<br />
<br />
== Beliefs ==<br />
<br />
=== Biblical ===<br />
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:<br />
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.<br />
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.<br />
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].<br />
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].<br />
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].<br />
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref><br />
<br />
=== Scientific ===<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.<br />
<br />
They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.<br />
<br />
Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.<br />
<br />
Some specific arguments are as follows:<br />
<br />
* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref><br />
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref><br />
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref><br />
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref><br />
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref><br />
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.<br />
<br />
== Biblical exegesis ==<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref><br />
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:<br />
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.<br />
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}<br />
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==<br />
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><br />
<br />
== Astronomy ==<br />
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]<br />
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:<br />
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:<br />
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound. <br />
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref><br />
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref><br />
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===<br />
{{main|Starlight problem}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]<br />
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].<br />
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.<br />
<br />
==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====<br />
<br />
One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.<br />
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref><br />
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).<br />
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" /><br />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref><br />
<br />
==== Russell Humphreys's model ====<br />
<br />
Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.<br />
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".<br />
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.<br />
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.<br />
<br />
However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref><br />
<br />
==== John Hartnett's model ====<br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. <br />
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref><br />
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).<br />
<br />
== Biology ==<br />
<br />
According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".<br />
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.<br />
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).<br />
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.<br />
<br />
Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.<br />
<br />
== Geology ==<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.<br />
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.<br />
The second was during Noah's Flood.<br />
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time. <br />
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsidized, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.<br />
<br />
== Anthropology ==<br />
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}<br />
<br />
YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.<br />
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.<br />
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.<br />
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".<br />
<br />
== Contrasted with evolution ==<br />
<br />
The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:<br />
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.<br />
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.<br />
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.<br />
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].<br />
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.<br />
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
===Lack of scientific acceptance===<br />
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.<br />
<br />
===Creationist methodology===<br />
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}<br />
<br />
Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.<br />
<br />
YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.<br />
<br />
Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
===Theological===<br />
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.<br />
<br />
One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.<br />
<br />
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.<br />
<br />
Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals ({{Bible|Genesis 2:19}}) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref><br />
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Responses to criticisms ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:<br />
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''<br />
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.<br />
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''<br />
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.<br />
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.<br />
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''<br />
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.<br />
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''<br />
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.<br />
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''<br />
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.<br />
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''<br />
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.<br />
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''<br />
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''<br />
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.<br />
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''<br />
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.<br />
<br />
== Arguments for a recent creation ==<br />
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]<br />
<br />
Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.<br />
<br />
Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.<br />
<br />
There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C.<br />
<br />
Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.<br />
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.<br />
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.<br />
<br />
[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.<br />
<br />
== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity, <br />
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref><br />
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.<br />
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]<br />
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
== Organizations and publications ==<br />
<br />
=== Organizations ===<br />
<br />
Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].<br />
<br />
=== Magazines and newsletters ===<br />
<br />
[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref><br />
<br />
The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.<br />
<br />
Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref><br />
<br />
=== Peer-reviewed journals ===<br />
<br />
The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref><br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
<br />
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref><br />
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9<br />
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref><br />
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref><br />
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref><br />
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref><br />
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]<br />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] <br />
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism websites:<br />
<br />
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br />
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]<br />
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]<br />
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]<br />
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]<br />
<br />
Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]<br />
<br />
Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Creation Science]]<br />
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br />
*[[Christianity and Science]]<br />
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]<br />
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]<br />
=== Alternative views===<br />
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]<br />
*[[Theistic evolution]]<br />
*[[Theory of Evolution]]<br />
*[[Gap theory]]<br />
*[[Day age creationism]]<br />
*[[Progressive Creationism]]<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]<br />
[[Category: Creationism]]<br />
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]<br />
[[Category:Featured articles]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=941282Young Earth Creationism2011-11-28T19:14:51Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Geology */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]<br />
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.<br />
<br />
Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.<br />
<br />
== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==<br />
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]<br />
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].<br />
<br />
=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]<br />
<br />
Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent. <br />
<br />
The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.<br />
<br />
Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:<br />
<br />
Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===<br />
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]<br />
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]<br />
<br />
The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.<br />
<br />
On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]<br />
<br />
== Beliefs ==<br />
<br />
=== Biblical ===<br />
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:<br />
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.<br />
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.<br />
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].<br />
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].<br />
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].<br />
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref><br />
<br />
=== Scientific ===<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.<br />
<br />
They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.<br />
<br />
Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.<br />
<br />
Some specific arguments are as follows:<br />
<br />
* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref><br />
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref><br />
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref><br />
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref><br />
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref><br />
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.<br />
<br />
== Biblical exegesis ==<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref><br />
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:<br />
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.<br />
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}<br />
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==<br />
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><br />
<br />
== Astronomy ==<br />
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]<br />
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:<br />
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:<br />
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound. <br />
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref><br />
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref><br />
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===<br />
{{main|Starlight problem}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]<br />
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].<br />
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.<br />
<br />
==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====<br />
<br />
One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.<br />
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref><br />
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).<br />
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" /><br />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref><br />
<br />
==== Russell Humphreys's model ====<br />
<br />
Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.<br />
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".<br />
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.<br />
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.<br />
<br />
However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref><br />
<br />
==== John Hartnett's model ====<br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. <br />
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref><br />
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).<br />
<br />
== Biology ==<br />
<br />
According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".<br />
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.<br />
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).<br />
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.<br />
<br />
Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.<br />
<br />
== Geology ==<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.<br />
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.<br />
The second was during Noah's Flood.<br />
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time. <br />
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers, causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsidized, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformations caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.<br />
<br />
== Anthropology ==<br />
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}<br />
<br />
YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.<br />
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.<br />
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.<br />
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".<br />
<br />
== Contrasted with evolution ==<br />
<br />
The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:<br />
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.<br />
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.<br />
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.<br />
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].<br />
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.<br />
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
===Lack of scientific acceptance===<br />
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.<br />
<br />
===Creationist methodology===<br />
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}<br />
<br />
Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.<br />
<br />
YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.<br />
<br />
Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
===Theological===<br />
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.<br />
<br />
One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.<br />
<br />
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.<br />
<br />
Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals ({{Bible|Genesis 2:19}}) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref><br />
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Responses to criticisms ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:<br />
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''<br />
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.<br />
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''<br />
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.<br />
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.<br />
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''<br />
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.<br />
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''<br />
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.<br />
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''<br />
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.<br />
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''<br />
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.<br />
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''<br />
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''<br />
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.<br />
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''<br />
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.<br />
<br />
== Arguments for a recent creation ==<br />
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]<br />
<br />
Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.<br />
<br />
Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.<br />
<br />
There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C.<br />
<br />
Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.<br />
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.<br />
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.<br />
<br />
[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.<br />
<br />
== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity, <br />
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref><br />
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.<br />
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]<br />
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
== Organizations and publications ==<br />
<br />
=== Organizations ===<br />
<br />
Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].<br />
<br />
=== Magazines and newsletters ===<br />
<br />
[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref><br />
<br />
The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.<br />
<br />
Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref><br />
<br />
=== Peer-reviewed journals ===<br />
<br />
The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref><br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
<br />
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref><br />
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9<br />
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref><br />
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref><br />
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref><br />
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref><br />
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]<br />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] <br />
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism websites:<br />
<br />
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br />
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]<br />
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]<br />
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]<br />
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]<br />
<br />
Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]<br />
<br />
Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Creation Science]]<br />
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br />
*[[Christianity and Science]]<br />
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]<br />
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]<br />
=== Alternative views===<br />
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]<br />
*[[Theistic evolution]]<br />
*[[Theory of Evolution]]<br />
*[[Gap theory]]<br />
*[[Day age creationism]]<br />
*[[Progressive Creationism]]<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]<br />
[[Category: Creationism]]<br />
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]<br />
[[Category:Featured articles]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=941281Young Earth Creationism2011-11-28T19:13:44Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Geology */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]<br />
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.<br />
<br />
Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.<br />
<br />
== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==<br />
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]<br />
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].<br />
<br />
=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]<br />
<br />
Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent. <br />
<br />
The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.<br />
<br />
Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:<br />
<br />
Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===<br />
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]<br />
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]<br />
<br />
The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.<br />
<br />
On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]<br />
<br />
== Beliefs ==<br />
<br />
=== Biblical ===<br />
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:<br />
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.<br />
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.<br />
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].<br />
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].<br />
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].<br />
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref><br />
<br />
=== Scientific ===<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.<br />
<br />
They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.<br />
<br />
Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.<br />
<br />
Some specific arguments are as follows:<br />
<br />
* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref><br />
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref><br />
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref><br />
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref><br />
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref><br />
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.<br />
<br />
== Biblical exegesis ==<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref><br />
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:<br />
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.<br />
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}<br />
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==<br />
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><br />
<br />
== Astronomy ==<br />
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]<br />
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:<br />
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:<br />
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound. <br />
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref><br />
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref><br />
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===<br />
{{main|Starlight problem}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]<br />
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].<br />
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.<br />
<br />
==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====<br />
<br />
One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.<br />
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref><br />
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).<br />
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" /><br />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref><br />
<br />
==== Russell Humphreys's model ====<br />
<br />
Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.<br />
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".<br />
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.<br />
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.<br />
<br />
However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref><br />
<br />
==== John Hartnett's model ====<br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. <br />
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref><br />
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).<br />
<br />
== Biology ==<br />
<br />
According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".<br />
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.<br />
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).<br />
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.<br />
<br />
Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.<br />
<br />
== Geology ==<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.<br />
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.<br />
The second was during Noah's Flood.<br />
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time. <br />
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers, causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there were probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsidized, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformation caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.<br />
<br />
== Anthropology ==<br />
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}<br />
<br />
YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.<br />
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.<br />
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.<br />
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".<br />
<br />
== Contrasted with evolution ==<br />
<br />
The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:<br />
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.<br />
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.<br />
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.<br />
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].<br />
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.<br />
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
===Lack of scientific acceptance===<br />
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.<br />
<br />
===Creationist methodology===<br />
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}<br />
<br />
Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.<br />
<br />
YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.<br />
<br />
Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
===Theological===<br />
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.<br />
<br />
One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.<br />
<br />
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.<br />
<br />
Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals ({{Bible|Genesis 2:19}}) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref><br />
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Responses to criticisms ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:<br />
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''<br />
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.<br />
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''<br />
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.<br />
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.<br />
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''<br />
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.<br />
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''<br />
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.<br />
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''<br />
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.<br />
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''<br />
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.<br />
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''<br />
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''<br />
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.<br />
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''<br />
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.<br />
<br />
== Arguments for a recent creation ==<br />
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]<br />
<br />
Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.<br />
<br />
Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.<br />
<br />
There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C.<br />
<br />
Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.<br />
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.<br />
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.<br />
<br />
[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.<br />
<br />
== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity, <br />
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref><br />
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.<br />
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]<br />
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
== Organizations and publications ==<br />
<br />
=== Organizations ===<br />
<br />
Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].<br />
<br />
=== Magazines and newsletters ===<br />
<br />
[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref><br />
<br />
The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.<br />
<br />
Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref><br />
<br />
=== Peer-reviewed journals ===<br />
<br />
The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref><br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
<br />
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref><br />
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9<br />
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref><br />
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref><br />
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref><br />
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref><br />
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]<br />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] <br />
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism websites:<br />
<br />
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br />
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]<br />
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]<br />
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]<br />
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]<br />
<br />
Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]<br />
<br />
Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Creation Science]]<br />
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br />
*[[Christianity and Science]]<br />
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]<br />
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]<br />
=== Alternative views===<br />
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]<br />
*[[Theistic evolution]]<br />
*[[Theory of Evolution]]<br />
*[[Gap theory]]<br />
*[[Day age creationism]]<br />
*[[Progressive Creationism]]<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]<br />
[[Category: Creationism]]<br />
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]<br />
[[Category:Featured articles]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=941280Young Earth Creationism2011-11-28T19:12:29Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Geology */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|310px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]<br />
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[earth]] and the [[universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the [[Evolution|evolutionary position]] are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.<br />
<br />
Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many [[anomaly|anomalies]] associated with the old earth/universe position.<br />
<br />
== Young earth creationist grassroots activism - Question evolution! campaign ==<br />
[[File:Question-evolution.jpg|300px|thumbnail|right|There has been some enthusiastic student response to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] as can be seen [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign|HERE]].]]<br />
As noted earlier, the [[Question evolution! campaign]], launched by [[Creation Ministries International]], is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of evolution".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The ''15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer'' can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE].<br />
<br />
=== Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign ===<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Enthusiastic student response to the Question evolution! campaign]]<br />
<br />
Since the 1960s particularly, evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] has been force fed public students which many students resent. <br />
<br />
The Question evolution campaign has received some enthusiastic student response.<br />
<br />
Below are two students comments in the popular Christian YouTube channel [[Shockofgod]] about the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]:<br />
<br />
Amanda2324 writes at YouTube: "LOVE THESE QUESTIONS!!! Like I'm in Physical Geography and Logic & Critical Thinking classes, and the teachers always mention something that either directly or indirectly refers to evolution. I may bring a copy of these with me to my classes from now on..."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
MrCody writes at YouTube: "I wished you told me this back in February when i was being taught about evolution. I wished i could have asked my teacher all those just to make her feel stupid."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM]<br />
<br />
=== 2 million Question evolution! tracts ===<br />
[[File:Shockofgod.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the [[Shockofgod]] YouTube channel]]<br />
''See also:'' [[2 million Question Evolution! tracts goal of campaign fan]]<br />
<br />
The popular YouTube video producer [[Shockofgod]] is an ex-[[atheism|atheist]] and his channel features many anti-[[atheism]] videos. His YouTube videos have cumulatively received millions of views since his YouTube channel's inception.<br />
<br />
On September 18, 2011 Shockofgod released a video entitled ''Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions''. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
In that video, Shockofgod indicated he is going to move forward again and again with the Question evolution! campaign until 1,000,000 Question Evolution! tracts are in people's hands and then continue to move forward until 2,000,000 tracts are in people's hands.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNcpTKpNZM Evolutionists stumped confused & dumbfounded by 15 questions]</ref><br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
*[[Question evolution! group posting about tools to multiply the campaign]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and Texas]]<br />
*[[Question evolution! campaign and the United Kingdom]]<br />
<br />
== Beliefs ==<br />
<br />
=== Biblical ===<br />
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:<br />
* [[Creation]] took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.<br />
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.<br />
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].<br />
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].<br />
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].<br />
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref><br />
<br />
=== Scientific ===<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view. This imposes a heavy burden on the testability of both theories, which is one of the reasons why some scientists question whether either the creationary or evolutionary view is scientific.<br />
<br />
They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.<br />
<br />
Critics argue, however, that none of the YEC beliefs are subject to the scientific method, but the same criticism applies to theories promoted by evolutionists. The scientific method includes the process of making predictions based on your starting hypothesis and then performing experiments to verify those predictions, all in a manner that can be reproduced and validated by a peer review process.<br />
<br />
Some specific arguments are as follows:<br />
<br />
* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref><br />
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq</ref><br />
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref><br />
*Many young earth creationists (including those at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]]) assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref><br />
* The fact that so many cultures and people record a history of a great flood, and geological evidence of a flood in almost every area of the earth, shows that it is very likely, if not guaranteed that the great flood did take place.<ref>[www.noahs-ark-flood.com/]</ref><br />
* The fact that history only spans a few thousand years evidences a young Earth. If the Earth were millions of years old, then so would civilization. This is obviously not the case as recorded history only spans a few thousand years and our level of technology would be much more advanced.<br />
<br />
== Biblical exegesis ==<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref><br />
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:<br />
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.<br />
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}<br />
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==<br />
Young earth [[creation]] scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and [[universe]] being approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> They argue that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error,<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> and that [[geology]] further provides multiple lines of evidence that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] 28 July 2003.</ref> Rejecting the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions of secular geologists, they use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that depends more on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> and point out that catastrophism is being increasingly accepted in the field of geology.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><br />
<br />
== Astronomy ==<br />
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]<br />
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:<br />
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}<br />
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:<br />
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref><br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound. <br />
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref><br />
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref><br />
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===<br />
{{main|Starlight problem}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]<br />
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].<br />
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.<br />
<br />
==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====<br />
<br />
One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.<br />
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref><br />
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).<br />
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" /><br />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref><br />
<br />
==== Russell Humphreys's model ====<br />
<br />
Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.<br />
Humphreys's model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".<br />
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.<br />
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.<br />
<br />
However, this theory is not without problems. The evidence contradicts Humphrey's assumption that the earth is in a large gravity well. If the earth were in such a gravity well, light from distant galaxies should be blue-shifted. Instead, it is red-shifted. Also, gravitational time dilation, if it existed on such a large scale, should be easily observable. On the contrary, we observe (from the periods of Cepheid variable stars, from orbital rates of binary stars, from supernova extinction rates, from light frequencies, etc.) that such time dilation is minor. It is thought that there is some time dilation corresponding with Hubble's law (i.e., further objects have greater red shifts), but this is due to the well-understood expansion of the universe, and it is not nearly extreme enough to fit more than ten billion years into less than 10,000. <ref>Conner, S. R. and D. N. Page, 1998. Starlight and time is the Big Bang. CENTJ 12(2): 174-194. (See also letters in CENTJ 13(1), 1999, 49-52).</ref><br />
<br />
==== John Hartnett's model ====<br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. <br />
He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref><br />
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).<br />
<br />
== Biology ==<br />
<br />
According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".<br />
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.<br />
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much of this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).<br />
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.<br />
<br />
Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.<br />
<br />
== Geology ==<br />
<br />
YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.<br />
The first was during the creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.<br />
The second was during Noah's Flood.<br />
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, which would form massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation during a short period of time. <br />
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood. This single land mass broke apart during the Flood when the subterranean waters bursted out of the subterranean chambers, causing the earth to break apart (see also: [[Hydroplate Theory]]). According to many Young earth creationists, there was probably fewer oceans with much more land on the earth prior to the flood. It is believed that the worldwide water quantity increased after the flood. The sea trenches and ocean floors sunk further down after the flood waters subsidized, because of the increased pressure of the water, thus causing the sea levels to rise.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate_theory</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390_ILj34oM&feature=channel_video_title</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbj7FXQ-RY&feature=relmfu</ref> Young earth creationists also believe that many of the mountains, valleys, and lakes we see today were formed by the geological transformation caused by the flood. This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.<br />
<br />
== Anthropology ==<br />
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}<br />
<br />
YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.<br />
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.<br />
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.<br />
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".<br />
<br />
== Contrasted with evolution ==<br />
<br />
The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:<br />
* According to the chronogenealogies in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million(14 billion) years ago and Earth was formed around 4,500 million(4.5 billion) years ago.<br />
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.<br />
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.<br />
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death and suffering are part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].<br />
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.<br />
*Young Earth creationism is based on the Bible, the infallible Word of God.<ref>www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t002.html</ref> <ref>atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/a/bible.htm</ref><br />
<br />
==Criticism==<br />
===Lack of scientific acceptance===<br />
YEC was abandoned as a mainstream scientific concept around the start of the 19th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect2.htm|title=History of Science: Early Modern Geology|accessdate=2007-09-24|work=}}</ref> Most scientists see it as a non-scientific position, and regard attempts to prove it scientifically as being little more than religiously motivated [[pseudoscience]]. In 1997, a poll by the Gallup organization showed that 5% of US adults with professional degrees in science took a YEC view. In the aforementioned poll 40% of the same group said that they believed that life, including humans, had evolved over millions of years, but that God guided this process; a view described as [[theistic evolution]], while 55% held a view of "naturalistic evolution" in which no God took part in this process.<ref name="gallup 1997">{{cite web|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm|title = Gallup Poll 1997}}</ref> Some scientists (such as Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder) who believe in creationism are known to subscribe to other forms such as Old Earth creationism which posits an act of creation that took place millions or billions of years ago, with variations on the timing of the creation of mankind.<br />
<br />
===Creationist methodology===<br />
Against the Young Earth Creationist attacks on "evolutionism" and "Darwinism", critics argue that every challenge to evolution by YECs is either made in an unscientific fashion, or is readily explainable by science, and that while a gap in scientific knowledge may exist now it is likely to be closed through further research. While scientists acknowledge that there are indeed a number of gaps in the scientific theory, they generally reject the creationist viewpoint that these gaps represent fatal, insurmountable flaws with evolution. Those working in the field who pointed out the gaps in the first place have often explicitly rejected the creationist interpretation. The "God of the gaps" viewpoint has also been criticized by [[theology|theologians]] and [[philosophy|philosophers]],<ref>[http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm Is there anything wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?], by Robert Larmer</ref> although creationists claim that their models are based on what is known, not on gaps in knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}}<br />
<br />
Christian YECs adhere strongly to the concept of [[biblical inerrancy]], which declares the Bible to be divinely inspired and therefore scientifically infallible and non-correctable. This position is considered by devotees and critics alike to be incompatible with the principles of scientific Objectivity. The Young Earth creationist organizations [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) require all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy.<br />
<br />
YECs often suggest that supporters of evolution theory are primarily motivated by [[atheism]]. Critics reject this claim by pointing out that many supporters of evolutionary theory are in fact religious believers, and that major religious groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and [[Church of England]] believe that the concept of biological evolution does not imply a rejection of the scriptures. Nor do they support the specific doctrines of biblical inerrancy proposed by YEC. Critics also point out that workers in fields related to evolutionary biology are not required to sign statements of belief in evolution comparable to the biblical inerrancy pledges required by ICR and AiG. This is contrary to the popular belief of creationists that scientists operate on an a priori disbelief in biblical principles.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp Amazing admission.<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> They also discount Christian faith positions, like those of French Jesuit priest, geologist and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw that his work with evolutionary sciences actually confirmed and inspired his faith in the cosmic Christ. Nor do they believe the views of Catholic priest Fr. Thomas Berry, a cultural historian and eco-theologian, that the [[cosmology|cosmological]] 13 billion year "Universe Story" provides all faiths and all traditions a single account by which the divine has made its presence in the world.<br />
<br />
Proponents of YEC are regularly accused of [[quote mining]], the practice of isolating passages from academic texts that appear to support their claims while deliberately excluding context and conclusions to the contrary.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
===Theological===<br />
Some theologians oppose the proposition that God can be a legitimate or viable subject for scientific experimentation, and reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. They propose there are statements in the creation week itself which render the historical interpretation of Genesis incompatible with scientific evidence.<br />
<br />
One example is that God created the Earth and heavens, and light, on Day 1, plant life on Day 3, and the sun and moon on Day 4. One must ask where the light in Day 1 came from, and why there were plants in Day 3 if the sun, which provides all light to the Earth, did not even exist until Day 4.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/framework-interpretation-critique-part-one A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 1 of 2) - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> YECs such as Basil the Great and [[John Calvin]] answered this by suggesting that the light created by God on Day 1 was the light source. Answers in Genesis has refined this by suggesting that the Earth was already rotating with respect to this light.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal before the sun was created?<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One can also make a case that God created the plants toward the evening of Day 3, the Sun was created on the morning of Day 4, therefore the plants only had to endure darkness for a period not much longer than a typical night.<br />
<br />
Another problem is the fact that distant galaxies can be seen. If the universe did not exist until 10,000 years ago, then light from anything farther than 10,000 light-years would not have time to reach us. Most cosmologists accept an inflation model as the likely explanation for the horizon problem. Inflationary models also account for other phenomena, and are in agreement with observations of recent microwave anisotropy satellites. Creationists have also proposed models to explain why we see distant starlight.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - Answers in Genesis<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> See creationist cosmologies and the [[starlight problem]] for more information.<br />
<br />
Many critics claim that Genesis itself is internally inconsistent on the question of whether man was created before the animals ({{Bible|Genesis 2:19}}) or after the animals as stated in Genesis. Proponents of the Documentary hypothesis suggest that Genesis 1 was a litany from the ''Priestly'' source (possibly from an early Jewish [[liturgy]]) while Genesis 2 was assembled from older ''Jahwist'' material, holding that for both stories to be a single account, Adam would have named all the animals, and God would have created Eve from his rib as a suitable mate, all within a single 24 hour period. Many creationists attribute this view to misunderstanding having arisen from poor translation of the tenses in Genesis 2 in contemporary translations of the Bible (e.g. compare "planted" and "had planted" in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=9 KJV] and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:8;&version=31 NIV]).<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp Biblical Exegesis</ref><br />
Some Christians assert that the Bible is free from error only in religious and moral matters, and that where scientific questions are concerned, the Bible should not be read literally. This position is held by a number of major denominations. For instance, in a publication entitled ''The Gift of Scripture''<ref>http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Resources/Scripture/ (October 2005)</ref>, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales comments that "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision". The Bible is held to be true in passages relating to human salvation, but "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible | first=Ruth | last=Gledhill | date=2005-10-05}}</ref> By contrast, YECs contend that moral and spiritual matters in the Bible are intimately connected with its historical accuracy; in their view, the Bible stands or falls as a single indivisible block of knowledge.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/editorial.asp ‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br />
<br />
Aside from the theological doubts voiced by other Christians, YEC also stands in opposition to the creation mythologies of other religions (both [[wikt:extant|extant]] and [[extinct]]). Many of these make claims regarding the origin of the universe and humanity that are completely incompatible with those of Christian creationists (and with one another).<ref>{{cite book|title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths|last=Leeming|first=D.A.|coauthors=Leeming, M.A.|year=1996|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks|isbn=0195102754}}</ref><br />
<br />
== Responses to criticisms ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:<br />
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''<br />
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.<br />
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''<br />
: Creationists deny that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there are metaphors and other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.<br />
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.<br />
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''<br />
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.<br />
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''<br />
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''<br />
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.<br />
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''<br />
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.<br />
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''<br />
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.<br />
* ''Creationisms is not falsifiable.''<br />
: Creationism is not less falsifiable than evolution. See [[falsifiability of Creation]] and [[Falsifiability of evolution]].<br />
* ''Creationists want their view taught in schools, but not other creation stories.''<br />
: Creationists have made it clear that they only want ''scientific evidence'' consistent with creation taught. Critics have not proposed any scientific evidence for other creation stories.<br />
* ''Leading creationists know that what they promote is wrong, so they are liars.''<br />
: Accusations like this are rarely backed by any evidence of systematic lying.<br />
<br />
== Arguments for a recent creation ==<br />
{{main|Arguments for a recent creation}}<br />
<br />
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]<br />
<br />
Many arguments for a recent creation have been put forward by creationary scientists, both scientific and theological arguments.<br />
<br />
Scientific arguments include [[radiometric dating]] results that disagree with secular ages, other dating methods that do not fit with secular ages, and phenomenon showing events that occurred quickly.<br />
<br />
There should be virtually no <sup>14</sup>C present in carbon supposedly older than 100,000 years, yet it has proved impossible to find any such carbon without <sup>14</sup>C.<br />
<br />
Dating methods don't have to be based on radioactivity.<br />
Measuring the amount of [[sodium]] in sea water, for example, and calculating how long it would take to reach those levels is another method.<br />
Yet calculations show that the amount of sodium could not have taken longer than 62 million years to accumulate, well short of the 3,000 million year supposed age of the oceans.<br />
<br />
[[Polystrate fossil]]s demonstrate that many layers of sedimentary rock that are normally supposed to take a long time to form can be formed quite quickly.<br />
<br />
== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==<br />
<br />
Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity, <br />
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early church fathers held the young earth creationist view.<ref><br />
* James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.<br />
* Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]<br />
* http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
== Organizations and publications ==<br />
<br />
=== Organizations ===<br />
<br />
Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and NorthWest Creation Network (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].<br />
<br />
=== Magazines and newsletters ===<br />
<br />
[[Creation Ministries International]] publishes a 56-page color magazine, ''[[Creation magazine]]'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref><br />
<br />
The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.<br />
<br />
Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref><br />
<br />
=== Peer-reviewed journals ===<br />
<br />
The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society,<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref> and the [[Journal of Creation]] is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref><br />
<br />
==Further Reading==<br />
<br />
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref><br />
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9<br />
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]<br />
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref><br />
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref><br />
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref><br />
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref><br />
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]<br />
{{Creation vs. evolution}}<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br />
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] <br />
*[http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&grupo=Life%20%20Family&canal=Life%20and%20Bioethics The Problem of Evolution] Facts and theories of biological evolution.<br />
<br />
Young earth creationism websites:<br />
<br />
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br />
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]<br />
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]<br />
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]<br />
*[http://www.creationworldview.org Creation Worldview Ministries]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html Biblical Young Earth Creationism]<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup Edinburgh Creation Group]<br />
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page Creation Wiki: The Encyclopedia of Creation Science]<br />
<br />
Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]<br />
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]<br />
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]<br />
<br />
Videos focusing on arguments for a young earth:<br />
<br />
*[http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/youngearth.php Evidence for a Young Earth]- Dr Marc Surtees<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Creation Science]]<br />
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br />
*[[Christianity and Science]]<br />
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]<br />
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]<br />
=== Alternative views===<br />
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]<br />
*[[Theistic evolution]]<br />
*[[Theory of Evolution]]<br />
*[[Gap theory]]<br />
*[[Day age creationism]]<br />
*[[Progressive Creationism]]<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]<br />
[[Category: Creationism]]<br />
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]<br />
[[Category:Featured articles]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=941129Socialism2011-11-28T01:39:17Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]<br />
'''Socialism''' is a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system which advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe|European]] countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:<br />
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...<br />
<br />
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.<br />
<br />
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.<br />
<br />
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref><br />
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.<br />
<br />
== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==<br />
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Shepard Fairey, designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]<br />
<br />
In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.<br />
<br />
If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref><br />
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref><br />
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===<br />
<br />
[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref><br />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===<br />
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:<br />
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”<br />
<br />
Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Influence of Russia on socialism ==<br />
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref><br />
<br />
In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.<br />
<br />
In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class. <br />
<br />
The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government. <br />
<br />
Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.<br />
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> <small>- Winston Churchill</small>''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=Contradictory Goals of Socialism=<br />
<br />
Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.<br />
<br />
Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref> <br />
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.<br />
<br />
But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.<br />
<br />
The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power. <br />
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.<br />
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!<br />
<br />
=Types of Socialism=<br />
<br />
There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.<br />
<br />
==Leninism==<br />
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]<br />
<br />
Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.<br />
<br />
Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).<br />
<br />
=="Democratic" Socialism==<br />
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.<br />
<br />
The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth. <br />
<br />
Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref><br />
<br />
==Communal Socialism==<br />
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.<br />
<br />
== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto<br />
![[Nazi]] Party Platform<br />
!Analysis<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."<br />
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."<br />
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." <br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."<br />
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance." <br />
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished." <br />
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."<br />
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."<br />
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."<br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."<br />
|Central control of the financial system.<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."<br />
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."<br />
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." <br />
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "<br />
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Controversy==<br />
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''<br />
<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.<br />
<br />
However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.<br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.<br />
===Welfare state===<br />
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.<br />
<br />
State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].<br />
<br />
===Religion===<br />
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. <br />
<br />
During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.<br />
<br />
See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
====New Testament socialism====<br />
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref> <br />
<br />
However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9) <br />
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}<br />
<br />
While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19) <br />
<br />
Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff) <br />
<br />
While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref> <br />
<br />
In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed. <br />
<br />
As one critic of modern-day socialism states: <br />
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote><br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.<br />
<br />
== Criticism of socialism ==<br />
<br />
[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.<br />
<br />
Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked: <br />
<blockquote><br />
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref><br />
<br />
==Past Socialist Countries==<br />
===Chile===<br />
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.<br />
<br />
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==<br />
===[[Cuba]]===<br />
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)<br />
<br />
===North Korea===<br />
<br />
North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref><br />
<br />
===Venezuela===<br />
<br />
The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.<br />
<br />
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."<br />
<br />
-- [[Winston Churchill]]<br />
<br />
"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"<br />
<br />
-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]<br />
<br />
"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"<br />
<br />
-- L. Neil Smith<br />
<br />
"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."<br />
<br />
-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]<br />
<br />
"All socialism involves slavery"<br />
<br />
-- [[Herbert Spencer]]<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Nazism and socialism]]<br />
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique<br />
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar<br />
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993) <br />
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative <br />
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]<br />
<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Socialism]]<br />
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]<br />
[[Category:Oppression]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-American]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=941128Socialism2011-11-28T01:32:35Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]<br />
'''Socialism''' is a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system with state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe|European]] countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:<br />
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...<br />
<br />
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.<br />
<br />
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.<br />
<br />
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref><br />
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.<br />
<br />
== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==<br />
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Shepard Fairey, designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]<br />
<br />
In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.<br />
<br />
If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref><br />
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref><br />
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===<br />
<br />
[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref><br />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===<br />
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:<br />
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”<br />
<br />
Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Influence of Russia on socialism ==<br />
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref><br />
<br />
In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.<br />
<br />
In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class. <br />
<br />
The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government. <br />
<br />
Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.<br />
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> <small>- Winston Churchill</small>''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=Contradictory Goals of Socialism=<br />
<br />
Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.<br />
<br />
Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref> <br />
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.<br />
<br />
But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.<br />
<br />
The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power. <br />
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.<br />
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!<br />
<br />
=Types of Socialism=<br />
<br />
There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.<br />
<br />
==Leninism==<br />
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]<br />
<br />
Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.<br />
<br />
Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).<br />
<br />
=="Democratic" Socialism==<br />
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.<br />
<br />
The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth. <br />
<br />
Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref><br />
<br />
==Communal Socialism==<br />
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.<br />
<br />
== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto<br />
![[Nazi]] Party Platform<br />
!Analysis<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."<br />
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."<br />
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." <br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."<br />
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance." <br />
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished." <br />
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."<br />
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."<br />
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."<br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."<br />
|Central control of the financial system.<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."<br />
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."<br />
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." <br />
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "<br />
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Controversy==<br />
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''<br />
<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.<br />
<br />
However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.<br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.<br />
===Welfare state===<br />
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.<br />
<br />
State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].<br />
<br />
===Religion===<br />
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. <br />
<br />
During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.<br />
<br />
See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
====New Testament socialism====<br />
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref> <br />
<br />
However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9) <br />
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}<br />
<br />
While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19) <br />
<br />
Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff) <br />
<br />
While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref> <br />
<br />
In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed. <br />
<br />
As one critic of modern-day socialism states: <br />
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote><br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.<br />
<br />
== Criticism of socialism ==<br />
<br />
[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.<br />
<br />
Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked: <br />
<blockquote><br />
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref><br />
<br />
==Past Socialist Countries==<br />
===Chile===<br />
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.<br />
<br />
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==<br />
===[[Cuba]]===<br />
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)<br />
<br />
===North Korea===<br />
<br />
North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref><br />
<br />
===Venezuela===<br />
<br />
The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.<br />
<br />
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."<br />
<br />
-- [[Winston Churchill]]<br />
<br />
"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"<br />
<br />
-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]<br />
<br />
"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"<br />
<br />
-- L. Neil Smith<br />
<br />
"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."<br />
<br />
-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]<br />
<br />
"All socialism involves slavery"<br />
<br />
-- [[Herbert Spencer]]<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Nazism and socialism]]<br />
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique<br />
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar<br />
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993) <br />
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative <br />
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]<br />
<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Socialism]]<br />
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]<br />
[[Category:Oppression]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-American]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=941127Socialism2011-11-28T01:29:30Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]<br />
'''Socialism''' is a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system with state ownership or control of most of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe|European]] countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:<br />
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...<br />
<br />
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.<br />
<br />
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.<br />
<br />
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref><br />
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.<br />
<br />
== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==<br />
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Shepard Fairey, designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]<br />
<br />
In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.<br />
<br />
If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref><br />
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref><br />
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===<br />
<br />
[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref><br />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===<br />
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:<br />
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”<br />
<br />
Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Influence of Russia on socialism ==<br />
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref><br />
<br />
In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.<br />
<br />
In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class. <br />
<br />
The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government. <br />
<br />
Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.<br />
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> <small>- Winston Churchill</small>''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=Contradictory Goals of Socialism=<br />
<br />
Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.<br />
<br />
Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref> <br />
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.<br />
<br />
But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.<br />
<br />
The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power. <br />
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.<br />
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!<br />
<br />
=Types of Socialism=<br />
<br />
There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.<br />
<br />
==Leninism==<br />
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]<br />
<br />
Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.<br />
<br />
Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).<br />
<br />
=="Democratic" Socialism==<br />
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.<br />
<br />
The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth. <br />
<br />
Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref><br />
<br />
==Communal Socialism==<br />
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.<br />
<br />
== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto<br />
![[Nazi]] Party Platform<br />
!Analysis<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."<br />
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."<br />
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." <br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."<br />
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance." <br />
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished." <br />
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."<br />
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."<br />
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."<br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."<br />
|Central control of the financial system.<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."<br />
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."<br />
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." <br />
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "<br />
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Controversy==<br />
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''<br />
<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.<br />
<br />
However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.<br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.<br />
===Welfare state===<br />
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.<br />
<br />
State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].<br />
<br />
===Religion===<br />
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. <br />
<br />
During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.<br />
<br />
See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
====New Testament socialism====<br />
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref> <br />
<br />
However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9) <br />
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}<br />
<br />
While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19) <br />
<br />
Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff) <br />
<br />
While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref> <br />
<br />
In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed. <br />
<br />
As one critic of modern-day socialism states: <br />
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote><br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.<br />
<br />
== Criticism of socialism ==<br />
<br />
[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.<br />
<br />
Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked: <br />
<blockquote><br />
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref><br />
<br />
==Past Socialist Countries==<br />
===Chile===<br />
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.<br />
<br />
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==<br />
===[[Cuba]]===<br />
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)<br />
<br />
===North Korea===<br />
<br />
North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref><br />
<br />
===Venezuela===<br />
<br />
The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.<br />
<br />
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."<br />
<br />
-- [[Winston Churchill]]<br />
<br />
"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"<br />
<br />
-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]<br />
<br />
"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"<br />
<br />
-- L. Neil Smith<br />
<br />
"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."<br />
<br />
-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]<br />
<br />
"All socialism involves slavery"<br />
<br />
-- [[Herbert Spencer]]<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Nazism and socialism]]<br />
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique<br />
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar<br />
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993) <br />
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative <br />
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]<br />
<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Socialism]]<br />
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]<br />
[[Category:Oppression]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-American]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=941126Socialism2011-11-28T01:28:51Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]<br />
'''Socialism''' is a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system with state ownership or control of all or most of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe|European]] countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:<br />
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...<br />
<br />
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.<br />
<br />
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.<br />
<br />
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref><br />
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.<br />
<br />
== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==<br />
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Shepard Fairey, designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]<br />
<br />
In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.<br />
<br />
If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref><br />
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref><br />
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===<br />
<br />
[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref><br />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===<br />
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:<br />
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”<br />
<br />
Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Influence of Russia on socialism ==<br />
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref><br />
<br />
In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.<br />
<br />
In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class. <br />
<br />
The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government. <br />
<br />
Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.<br />
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> <small>- Winston Churchill</small>''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=Contradictory Goals of Socialism=<br />
<br />
Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.<br />
<br />
Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref> <br />
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.<br />
<br />
But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.<br />
<br />
The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power. <br />
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.<br />
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!<br />
<br />
=Types of Socialism=<br />
<br />
There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.<br />
<br />
==Leninism==<br />
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]<br />
<br />
Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.<br />
<br />
Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).<br />
<br />
=="Democratic" Socialism==<br />
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.<br />
<br />
The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth. <br />
<br />
Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref><br />
<br />
==Communal Socialism==<br />
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.<br />
<br />
== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto<br />
![[Nazi]] Party Platform<br />
!Analysis<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."<br />
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."<br />
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." <br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."<br />
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance." <br />
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished." <br />
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."<br />
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."<br />
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."<br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."<br />
|Central control of the financial system.<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."<br />
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."<br />
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." <br />
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "<br />
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Controversy==<br />
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''<br />
<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.<br />
<br />
However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.<br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.<br />
===Welfare state===<br />
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.<br />
<br />
State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].<br />
<br />
===Religion===<br />
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. <br />
<br />
During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.<br />
<br />
See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
====New Testament socialism====<br />
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref> <br />
<br />
However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9) <br />
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}<br />
<br />
While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19) <br />
<br />
Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff) <br />
<br />
While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref> <br />
<br />
In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed. <br />
<br />
As one critic of modern-day socialism states: <br />
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote><br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.<br />
<br />
== Criticism of socialism ==<br />
<br />
[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.<br />
<br />
Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked: <br />
<blockquote><br />
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref><br />
<br />
==Past Socialist Countries==<br />
===Chile===<br />
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.<br />
<br />
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==<br />
===[[Cuba]]===<br />
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)<br />
<br />
===North Korea===<br />
<br />
North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref><br />
<br />
===Venezuela===<br />
<br />
The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.<br />
<br />
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."<br />
<br />
-- [[Winston Churchill]]<br />
<br />
"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"<br />
<br />
-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]<br />
<br />
"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"<br />
<br />
-- L. Neil Smith<br />
<br />
"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."<br />
<br />
-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]<br />
<br />
"All socialism involves slavery"<br />
<br />
-- [[Herbert Spencer]]<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Nazism and socialism]]<br />
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique<br />
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar<br />
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993) <br />
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative <br />
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]<br />
<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Socialism]]<br />
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]<br />
[[Category:Oppression]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-American]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=941125Socialism2011-11-28T01:21:44Z<p>Nashhinton: economic liberalism originally referred to the advocacy of a laissez fairre and free market economy. "Leftist" is a more appropriate term, especially when referring to economics</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|250px|right|One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> ]]<br />
'''Socialism''' is a [[leftist]] [[economics|economic]] system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref> Socialism is the economic system imposed by [[Communism]], but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (NAZI) which was headed by the [[evolution|evolutionary racist]] [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as [[Europe|European]] countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties).<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/european_socialism_is_bleeding.html</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] declares:<br />
{{cquote|The identification of [[Nazi]] [[Germany]] as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of [[Ludwig von Mises]]...<br />
<br />
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.<br />
<br />
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.<br />
<br />
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.<ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref>}} <br />
<br />
Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the [[United States]] is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague [[Auguste Comte]], in the 1820s and 30s, along with [[Robert Owen]] contemporaneously in England, ''stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution."'' <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ Thomas E. Brewton; Once Again: What Is Socialism?]</ref><br />
When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.<br />
<br />
== Barack Obama and his socialistic and "fascist light" policies ==<br />
[[File:Shepard-Fairey-imgs.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Shepard Fairey, designer of the official Obama hope and change logo, is more known for his anti-American and pro-communist themes. Here a [[Mao Zedong|Maoist]] revolutionary is depicted. <ref>http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&rlz=1I7ACAW_en___US352&tbs=isch:1&q=Shepard+Fairey&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20</ref> ]]<br />
<br />
In April of 2010, [[American]] political consultant [[Dick Morris]] wrote:<br />
{{cquote|When [[Obama]] took office, federal, state and local spending accounted for 30 percent of [[gross domestic product]]. Now it is up to 35 percent, and when health care is fully implemented, it will rise to above 40 percent. But taxes are still below 30 percent. The difference is the deficit, now grown to 10 percent of our GDP.<br />
<br />
If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.<ref>http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2010/04/24/the_silent_killer_obamas_vat_proposal</ref>}}<br />
<br />
[[Anita Dunn]], the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she “turns to the most”, is [[Mao Zedong]], the [[communism|communist]] dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.<ref>http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/10/16/anita-dunn-favorite-philosopher-mao-tse-tung/</ref><br />
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies ([[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature).<ref>http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc</ref><ref>http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944</ref> Obamunism can also allude to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching</ref><ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm</ref><ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/</ref><br />
=== Larry Summers and Leftist Economics ===<br />
<br />
[[Larry Summers]] currently is the Director of the White House's National Economic Council (NEC) for President Barack Obama. George Gerald Reisman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at [[Pepperdine University]] and author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, wrote that Summers socialistic ideas on redistributing wealth demonstrate that [[Larry Summers]] is a "lightweight leftist" who "fails to understand the nature of the most essential feature of capitalism, namely, private ownership of the means of production and the indispensable role it plays in the standard of living of the average person."<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref> Reisman also wrote that Summers is a shallow and ignorant man whose knowledge of economics is minimal and whose evil views qualify him to be the economic advisor to [[Hugo Chavez]] of [[Venezuela]] or [[Robert Mugabe]] of [[Zimbabwe]], but do not qualify him to be an economic advisor to the President of the United States.<ref>http://blog.mises.org/archives/009031.asp</ref><br />
=== Obama administration and land ownership ===<br />
In August of 2010, [[Hot Air]] declared:<br />
{{cquote|The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly [http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 one of every three acres] in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGKEAG0.htm private forest land] throughout the [[New England]] region. Agriculture Secretary [[Tom Vilsack]] crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.”<br />
<br />
Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages.<ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/14/great-outdoors-initiative-a-federal-land-grab/</ref>}}<br />
<br />
== Influence of Russia on socialism ==<br />
Not until the birth of the [[Soviet Union]] after the [[Communist Revolution]] did the idea become generally accepted that socialism meant government seizing ownership of the economy. Experience in 19th and 20th century [[France]], [[England]], and [[Germany]], however, made it clear that regulatory control by government bureaucrats is sufficient to implement socialism. <ref>[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/once_again_what_is_socialism/ What is Socialism?]</ref><br />
<br />
In [[Communism]] (the primary variant of socialism) the central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.<br />
<br />
In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer, or at least controls the regulation of production and distribution. The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership or control of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class. <br />
<br />
The socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], because it opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government. <br />
<br />
Theoretically, socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.<br />
{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> <small>- Winston Churchill</small>''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}<br />
<br />
=Contradictory Goals of Socialism=<br />
<br />
Socialism's stated purpose is to eliminate the huge gap between the highest and lowest classes of society. Their bitter complaint has been that the upper class exploits its dominance to gain privileges and wealth, while the lower class must suffer tyranny and poverty.<ref>"all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class." [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_an_economic_system] </ref> This obsession with class paradoxically creates a group of people with a vested interest in seeing class differences remain (socialist politicians, [[community organizer]]s, ''etc.''); if by some means the class system actually ''were'' destroyed, these people would be out of a job.<br />
<br />
Another essential goal of most socialist thinkers has been to eliminate [[Capitalism]],<ref>"... one of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement throughout history has been the abolition of capitalism" [http://www.experiencefestival.com/socialism_-_opposition_and_criticisms_of_socialism_arguments_for_and_against A Wisdom Archive on Socialism - Opposition and criticisms of socialism; arguments for and against]</ref> <br />
on the grounds that only "social control" of the economy can prevent abuses such as [[feudalism]], [[monopoly]], [[cartel]]s, etc.<br />
<br />
But experiments on both a moderate and a grand scale have shown that socialism's main purpose has been undermined by its unremitting opposition to [[free market]] economics. In its drive to eliminate capitalism, it has overlooked the fact that general prosperity is vouchsafed by [[economic freedom]], and that free market economics improves the lot of the poor much more quickly and permanently than any system of central economic control.<br />
<br />
The real aim of socialists is probably personal: why else would socialists want to create programs which encourage Dependency? Well, it fits into their lust for power. <br />
People who want to control others need people who are willing to be controlled.<br />
Independent, proactive people do not fit into the socialist Power Model. That is why the first thing [[Karl Marx|Marx]] wanted to remove from the economy was the [[Profit]] Motive: it gives people an incentive to make their own decisions!<br />
<br />
=Types of Socialism=<br />
<br />
There are three main kinds of Socialism, all of them are built on the premise of government control of the means of production.<br />
<br />
==Leninism==<br />
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great unbeatable flag of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]]!"]]<br />
<br />
Marxist Socialism, or '''Leninism''', as revised by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and practiced in the pre-[[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] Soviet Union, was the Socialistic theory developed by Vladimir Lenin during his rise to power. Lenin defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.<ref>"In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism", Lenin, State and Revolution, Selected Works, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1968, p. 320. (End of chapter four)</ref> Leninism is totalitarian, with no [[democracy]] and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Lenin saw the Communist Party as an "elite" that was committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place and attaining the power by any means possible, including revolution. Lenin was quite mild on the belief, believing that, though controlling of resources was important, the people's will comes first.<br />
<br />
Though [[Bolshevik]] Russia was somewhat more prosperous than its former [[Russian Empire|Tsardom]], Lenin's death in 1924 sparked the overthrow of his Marxist-Leninism and the imposition of [[Stalinism]], the violent, totalitarian belief that went against some of Lenin's ideas (many of Lenin's works were censored by Stalin post-1924).<br />
<br />
=="Democratic" Socialism==<br />
The second form of Socialism (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was inspired by [[Socialism]] and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.<br />
<br />
The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have sometimes dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted "Controlled Capitalism". However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth. <br />
<br />
Within the [[European Union]], a form of [[democratic socialism]] was initially viewed as successful, but eventually lead to lowered social equity and a downward spiraling economy, as well as general discontent. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degree of success. Beginning in 2010 many European countries were racked with rioting and social unrest as governments began to back away from out-of-control entitlements that began bankrupting them and lead to a world financial crisis because of unrestrained debt. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html WSJ; "Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements"]</ref> <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_protests_10 Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe]</ref> <ref>[http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-policy-bailouts/14758032-1.html "Debt crisis pushes Europe toward economic reforms"]</ref><br />
<br />
==Communal Socialism==<br />
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.<br />
<br />
== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==<br />
<br />
''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
!<br />
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto<br />
![[Nazi]] Party Platform<br />
!Analysis<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."<br />
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."<br />
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." <br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."<br />
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance." <br />
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished." <br />
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."<br />
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."<br />
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."<br />
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."<br />
|Central control of the financial system.<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."<br />
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."<br />
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." <br />
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "<br />
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Controversy==<br />
''This section confuses "interpretation" with "debate".''<br />
<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.<br />
<br />
However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.<br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.<br />
===Welfare state===<br />
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.<br />
<br />
State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].<br />
<br />
===Religion===<br />
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. <br />
<br />
During the chaos sparked by the advent of the Reformation in Europe, several sects with radical new interpretations of Christianity sprung up, many of them Anabaptists (believers in adult baptism). Under the leadership of the reformer Thomas Muntzer the peasants of south-west Germany rose up in arms against the clergy and nobility, establishing anarcho-communes in their wake. Though they were massacred to a man, ten years later a group of radical Anabaptists under the leadership of Jan Matthys seized control of the north-western Germany city of Munster from the Prince-Archbishop there and established a Christian-Communist state. True to the spirit of applied communism, Mathys took twelve wives, held lavish feasts for himself and his most loyal followers and had himself crowned King of the World as the city starved, besieged by an alliance of Protestant and Catholic forces keen to see them exterminated. Mathys and all his followers were all tortured and killed when the Prince-Archbishop returned with professional troops to sack the city and reassert his authority, effectively wiping out all non-pacifistic Anabaptists in north-western Germany. Only Baptists as we know them today survived the following persecution.<br />
<br />
See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
====New Testament socialism====<br />
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and while this is not shown to necessarily always require the literally forsaking of all,<ref>Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13</ref> Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common". Acts 4:32-5:11 also describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while openly pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref> <br />
<br />
However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, and placing all at His disposal,<ref>Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714), ''Commentary on the Whole Bible'', Lk. 14:25-35</ref><ref>Archibald Thomas Robertson, ''WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT'', Lk. 14:33</ref> with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9) <br />
{{cquote|Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:7-8)}}<br />
<br />
While the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Lk. 19:8,9; Acts 16:14,15; 1Cor. 11:22; 2Tim. 4:13) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but were not mandated by the church itself to give all they had away, but to be lowly in mind, and to be ready and willing to distribute, in faith and surrender to God. (1Tim. 6:17-19) <br />
<br />
Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2 Thes. 3:10-12; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff) <br />
<br />
While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked in support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, the early organic church was a result of the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit among believers, while the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and whose authority was established by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2</ref> <br />
<br />
In addition other distinctions, without the unique changes and influence resulting from faith and full surrender to Christ from all the community, and His anointing upon the work, attempts to mimic the communal life of Christians have failed. <br />
<br />
As one critic of modern-day socialism states: <br />
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote><br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and Socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residents. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiencies of the old system.<br />
<br />
== Criticism of socialism ==<br />
<br />
[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.<br />
<br />
Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked: <br />
<blockquote><br />
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
A government which adheres to economic socialistic principles also tends to have cultures which prize unmerited equality among citizen and criminal alike, and through extension of socialistic welfare policies, between the chronically employed and the chronically unemployed, by ensuring both groups receive income though only one group works for income. This enables people otherwise healthy to not seek gainful employment because they will receive income no matter their actions, thus providing no incentive to produce. The economies of socialistic governments are thus weak and riddled with flaws, such as expecting increased production from a reduced workforce, and when engendered with a progressive culture, which simply means people who do are the same as people who do not, eventually fall under the weight of their own poorly managed and over-extended public welfare institutions. Public welfare also decreases personal charity, thus making the people dependent on the aid of the government since charitable aid, such as from a church, is discouraged by the secular nature of socialistic nations.<br />
<br />
<br />
Socialists occasionally appeal to the fact that God, in the Old Testament, commanded His own nation to surrender a tenth of its proceeds for the maintenance of the priests and for the care of the sickly and weak. But, while fallen men, and their secular and pagan nations, shall always struggle to understand the righteous balances between government and liberty.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref> (i.e., between local and national logistics, as well as between the logistics of the individual person and those of his community) the mark of socialism is the general allowance for a naive, and willingly ignorant, adult sub-population whose members prefer, despite the limitations imposed by bureaucratic accountability, to live under all the securities rightly afforded in the fallen world only to infants. In the unfallen world, such security was a given for all persons, but without any of the bureaucracy required in the fallen world for maintaining it. In the fallen world, such security is an unattainable ideal, so that the more is done to attain it, the more the society suffers under the requisite bureaucracy. And, while the initial policy made toward that ideal is the creation of an executive class or executive vocation, such as monarchies and professional armies <ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=8&t=KJV#19 ''First Samuel 8:19-20'']Blue Letter Bible</ref><ref>[http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/09/29/consequences-combat-vietnam&title=The+Consequences+Of+Combat&segment=consequences-combat-vietnam&pubdate=2011-09-29&source=hereandnow ''Interview of Vietnam war veteran, and '''What It Is Like To Go To War''' author, Karl Marlantes, on NPR's Here And Now''</ref>, there is a 'tipping point' in the creation of bureaucratic entities beyond which any civilization cannot help but increasingly lose its footing in the struggle to balance all its righteous human interests. The result is an ever-increasing proportion of that civilization's total population which, for all variety of reasons, becomes enslaved to their own demands for that ideal of security. When there is no judge who judges righteously, when all the people make the laws, and when the power of money is used to try to stay ahead of the natural consequences of unrighteousness, the 'bad money' cannot help but drive out the 'good money', until the 'Bank of Reality' is forced to call in the loan, and the civilization implodes to the point that it falls victim also to militant invaders and, or, to unmanageable internal unrest.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139761274/how-the-a-p-changed-the-way-we-shop ''The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America''], "NPR’s interview of the book’s author, Marc Levinson"</ref><br />
<br />
==Past Socialist Countries==<br />
===Chile===<br />
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.<br />
<br />
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==<br />
===[[Cuba]]===<br />
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)<br />
<br />
===North Korea===<br />
<br />
North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref><br />
<br />
===Venezuela===<br />
<br />
The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
Some quotes on socialism by historical figures and great thinkers.<br />
<br />
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."<br />
<br />
-- [[Winston Churchill]]<br />
<br />
"I've always doubted that the socialists had a leg to stand on intellectually"<br />
<br />
-- [[Friedrich Hayek]]<br />
<br />
"The trouble is with socialism, which resembles a form of mental illness more than it does a philosophy"<br />
<br />
-- L. Neil Smith<br />
<br />
"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."<br />
<br />
-- [[Margaret Thatcher]]<br />
<br />
"All socialism involves slavery"<br />
<br />
-- [[Herbert Spencer]]<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Nazism and socialism]]<br />
*[[Essay:Resisting Socialist Landfills]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique<br />
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)<br />
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]<br />
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar<br />
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993) <br />
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative <br />
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]<br />
<br />
{{Liberalism}}<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Socialism]]<br />
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]<br />
[[Category:Oppression]]<br />
[[Category: Anti-American]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rapture&diff=941122Rapture2011-11-28T00:44:36Z<p>Nashhinton: /* See Also */</p>
<hr />
<div>Within Protestant theology, the '''Rapture''' is an event involving believers of Jesus Christ that is expected to take place in the [[Last Days]]. Outside of theological contexts, ''rapture'' is also a noun meaning ''"a state of being carried away by overwhelming emotion"''.<br />
<br />
==Meaning of the term==<br />
The word ''rapture'' is not found in the Bible, but taken from the Greek word "harpazo" (pronounced har-pad'-zo). The term is found 13 times in the New Testament (including Revelation 12:5 which addresses Jesus' ascent described in the Book of Acts). According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, "Harpazo" means "to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)." To this effect, most modern Christian ministries{{fact}} imply that "rapture" means "harpazo," which specifically points to being "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.<br />
<br />
Others have derived the concept of the rapture from the Greek word έκσταση, which is translated as ''ekstasi''.<br />
<br />
==Origin of the doctrine==<br />
There are several theories on the origin of the rapture.<ref>Sanders, E.F. [http://www.theologue.org/origins.html ''The Origin of the Pretribulational Rapture Theory''] (n.d.)</ref> Most of these are dated from the late 18th century onwards, but the concept was most popularly explained by [[John Nelson Darby]], a mid-19th century preacher.<br />
<br />
==Biblical References and Exegesis==<br />
John Nelson Darby interpreted 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 as the occasion on which future believers in Jesus Christ will be suddenly taken away prior to the events of the war of Armageddon and the ushering in of the Millennial Kingdom:<br />
{{Bible quote|But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.' For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be ''caught up'' together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.|book=1Thessalonians|chap=4|verses=13-18|version=KJV}}<br />
<br />
===Conditions that Could Precede the Rapture===<br />
Some Evangelical commentators{{fact}} suggest that the following events need to occur prior to the Rapture taking place:<br />
* Lawless conditions in the world, as in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:36-41)<br />
* The rise of a powerful government in Europe with its origins in the Roman Empire (Daniel 9, Revelation 13)<br />
* The rise of powerful countries to the north, south, and east of Israel (Daniel 11)<br />
* Israel living in peace with its neighbors (Ezekiel 38)<br />
* A peace treaty between Israel and the Arabs for seven years (Daniel 9)<br />
* The commencement of the rebuilding of the Jewish temple on it's original site in Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
The website 'Rapture Ready' maintains an index of how close the world apparently is to the Rapture.<ref>[http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html Rapture Ready]</ref><br />
<br />
===Relationship with Tribulationism===<br />
There is some debate within dispensationalist/tribulationist circles over whether the Rapture will occur before, during or after the reign of the [[Antichrist]], but the original reference by St [[Paul]] that "we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air" (at I Thessalonians 4:17) clearly dates it to the time of the [[Second Coming]], and does not suggest in any way that it will result in Christians being spared in advance the horrors of the [[Last Times]], as is sometimes proposed. Matthew 24:29-35 seems to favor the post-tribulation position, however:<br />
<br />
{{Bible quote|Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.|book=Matthew|chap=24|verses=29-35|version=KJV}}<br />
<br />
==Predictions Concerning Timing ==<br />
Throughout history, many people have tried to determine when the rapture will happen, mainly by analyzing the Bible and correlating what it says to events that were happening around them. A recent analysis by Harold Camping, a radio evangelist and founder of eBible Fellowship<ref>[http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/ Bible Fellowship]</ref> computed May 21, 2011 as the day of the rapture, although he uses a drastically different calendar for dating his events that support his view and states that the tribulation began in 1988.<br />
<br />
The practice of date setting has drawn criticism in some circles. Critics have pointed to verses such as Mark 13:32 and [[Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Matthew 24:36]], which indicate that no one knows the date of the rapture except for God Himself. Furthermore, Jesus predicted that "many false prophets will arise and deceive many people" regarding the date of the rapture ([[Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Matthew 24:11]]). Advocates of date setting (such as Harold Camping) have interpreted these verses in ways different to their isolated literal expression.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Midmillennial Dispensationalism]]<br />
* [[Postmillennial Dispensationalism]]<br />
* [[Premillennial Dispensationalism]]<br />
* [[Pretribulation rapture]]<br />
* [[Posttribulation rapture]]<br />
<br />
==External Llinks==<br />
*[http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/raptured_catholics.htm Are Catholics into the Rapture?]<br />
*[http://www.nyu.edu/fas/projects/vcb/ChristianMedia/prophecy_premdisp.html Prophecy and the End-Times]<br />
<br />
==Sources==<br />
* Armstrong, K., ''The Battle for God'' (Harper Perennial, 2000)<br />
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)<br />
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)<br />
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)<br />
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)<br />
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)<br />
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)<br />
<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941121Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:38:42Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Support for theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming|second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the great tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[Second Coming|second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the great tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941120Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:37:13Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming|second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the great tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[Second Coming|second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941119Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:36:04Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming|second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the great tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[Second Coming|second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the Tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the Day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941118Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:34:01Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming|second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the great tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, Posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[Second Coming|second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the Tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the Day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941117Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:32:16Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming|second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the Tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, Posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[Second Coming|second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the Tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the Day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941116Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:31:48Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' theory is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming|second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the Tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, Posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[Second Coming|second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the Tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the Day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941115Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:31:22Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' theory is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming|second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the Tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, Posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the Tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the Day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941114Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:30:43Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' theory is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[second coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the Tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, Posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[second coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the Tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the Day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Posttribulation_rapture&diff=941113Posttribulation rapture2011-11-28T00:28:52Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Posttribulation rapture''' theory is an [[eschatology|eschatological]] position within Christian [[theology]] which holds the idea that a simultaneous [[rapture]] and resurrection will occur after the [[tribulation]] and during the [[Second Coming]] of [[Christ]]. Therefore the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead happens after the tribulation and right before Christ sets up his [[Millennial Reign|political kingdom]] for 1000 years. <br />
<br />
Posttribulationists argue that Christians are only exempt from the day of God's wrath during [[armageddon]] by supernatural deliverance. According to them, the day of God's wrath, or the [[day of the Lord]], occurs after the second coming. Posttribulationists put a clear distinction between the wrath of God and the Tribulation. They argue that Christians are only spared during the wrath of God, and are not exempt from Satan's wrath during the tribulation in which many Christians will be martyred for their [[faith]] by the government of the [[Antichrist]].<br />
<br />
Premillennial Christians who believe in the [[pretribulation rapture]] view take the stance that the day of God's wrath is synonymous with the tribulation and therefore Christians are supernaturally "raptured" out of the tribulation, or the hour of trial, before it begins as noted in Revelation 3:10. Revelation 3:10 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
''"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."''<br />
<br />
However, posttribulationists argue that the greek translation of Revelation 3:10 only signifies Christians being preserved ''through'' the tribulation or ''out of'' the tribulation ''after'' the tribulation ends. In other words, Posttribulationists argue for this idea of the perseverance and preservation of Christians faithfully going through the tribulation. They believe that Christians must be purified in conduct and [[faith]] during the tribulation before the [[second Coming]] occurs as mentioned in Daniel 12:10. And then after the Tribulation, the believers of Jesus Christ will be resurrected and raptured and they shall be saved after the Tribulation in which they will be supernaturally protected by Jesus during the Day of the Lord when Jesus and his angelic armies will go out to fight the rebellious nations of the world. Posttribulationists also argue that God's judgements during the tribulation (such as the bowls and trumpets) will not fully inflict Christians because God will be supernaturally protecting His people during that time.<br />
<br />
==Support for theory==<br />
Posttribulationists hold the viewpoint that many verses directly correspond with other passages that mention the gathering of the saints (the rapture of the elect), such as Matthew 24:29-31, which names the same events and characters found in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The same characters and events are the [[angel|angels]], the gathering of the saints, and the blowing of the trumpet. Therefore, according to the proponents of the theory, the rapture must occur after "the tribulation of those days" since it was clarified in Matthew 24:29-31 that the rapture occurs after the Great Tribulation. Matthew 24:29-31 reads as follows:<br />
<br />
"Immediately '''after''' the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:<br />
'''And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven''': and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the '''Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'''.<br />
'''And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'''."<br />
<br />
Compare that verse with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:<br />
<br />
"'''For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout''', with the voice of the '''archangel''', and with the '''trump of God''': and the dead in Christ shall rise first:<br />
'''Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord'''."<br />
<br />
Therefore, due to the similarities between the verses, the rapture must happen ''after'' the Tribulation. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 mentions the rapture happening during the last trumpet. A question should then be asked, "When is the last trumpet?" The last trumpet, according to posttribulationists, is actually the seventh trumpet found in Revelation 11:15-18. Therefore posttribulationists believe the rapture can not possibly happen before the [[tribulation]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[End times]]<br />
* [[Rapture]]<br />
* [[Antichrist]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.totall.exagorazo.net/Post-Tribulation/Mirrors/Last%20Trumpet%202000/www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/index.html]- Take a look at the Posttribulation rapture theory.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Christian Theology]]<br />
[[Category:Eschatology]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gamma_wave&diff=926723Gamma wave2011-10-11T18:37:17Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Gamma waves''' are neural oscillation patterns that are created in the brains of humans. They are linked to higher performances of mental and cognitive functioning, and they induce higher states of conciousness and awareness. Many gamma waves are recorded as binaural sounds that can be listened to. Many gamma wave sounds can be sold as music CDs or they can be listened to online for free. Their frequency is between 25 to 100 Hz, though 40 Hz is prototypical.<br />
<br />
Listening to gamma waves will help train your brain to create the same type of oscillation patterns, making you more likely to have higher intelligence and induce better cognitive performance.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Brain]]<br />
*[[nervous system]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gamma_wave&diff=926721Gamma wave2011-10-11T18:29:43Z<p>Nashhinton: Created page with "'''Gamma waves''' are neural oscillation patterns that are created in the brains of humans. They are linked to higher performances of mental and cognitive functioning, and they i..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Gamma waves''' are neural oscillation patterns that are created in the brains of humans. They are linked to higher performances of mental and cognitive functioning, and they induce higher states of conciousness and awareness. Many gamma waves are recorded as binaural sounds that can be listened to. Many gamma wave sounds can be sold as music CDs or they can be listened to online for free. Their frequency is between 25 to 100 Hz, though 40 Hz is prototypical.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
*[[Brain]]<br />
*[[nervous system]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Agnosticism&diff=923185Agnosticism2011-09-30T02:58:05Z<p>Nashhinton: /* See also */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:65375.jpg|thumb|David Hume]]<br />
'''Agnosticism''' is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of ignorance regarding the existence of [[God]], and in stronger forms, the assertion that God's existence is not capable of being known (unknowable).<br />
<br />
The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of logic, does not have a truth value, and therefore he is not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, ''I know that the existence of God cannot be known''. <br />
<br />
The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by [[T. H. Huxley]]<ref>T. H. Huxley was also an early and influential supporter of [[Darwinism]].</ref> from the [[Greek language|Greek]] roots ''a-'' not, and ''-gnostic,'' knowing; the philosopher [[Herbert Spencer]] was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth-century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."<ref>London, Jack (1913), ''Martin Eden,'' [http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/MartinEden/chapter13.html Chapter 13]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Atheism and agnosticism==<br />
Some agnostics bristle at the term ''[[atheist]]''. They say they aren't atheists, because they don't "believe that God does not exist" but rather "neither believe nor disbelieve". <br />
<br />
Agnostics differ from regular [[Atheism|atheists]] in that they do not deny God's existence.<br />
<br />
Many religious [[believer]]s make no distinction among [[non-believer]]s. If you're not sure that God exists, they combine the unsure and "surely not" into one lump. For these believers, an "atheist" is any [[faithless]] person who doesn't [[believe]] in God.<br />
<br />
Among those who have not decided whether to believe in God, or to disbelieve in Him, there are two main groups:<br />
#Those who simply haven't made a decision<br />
#Those who declare no rational decision is possible, on the grounds that the existence of God is not knowable.<br />
<br />
[[Bertrand Russell]] once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,<br />
:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a [[philosopher]], if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the [[Greek mythology|Homeric gods]].<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref><br />
<br />
== Norman Geisler on Complete Agnosticism ==<br />
<br />
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Norman Geisler]] wrote on complete agnosticism: <br />
{{cquote|Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to [[falsify]] itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20).<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Frequency==<br />
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]<br />
Agnosticism has become a fairly common belief system in Western culture with 14% of people in the [[United States]], 32% of people in [[France]] and 35% of people in [[Great Britain]] self-identifying as agnostics.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131</ref><br />
<br />
==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness==<br />
[[Per capita]] atheists and agnostics in the [[United States]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists]].<br />
== Famous Agnostics ==<br />
*[[Bill Maher]]<br />
*[[Larry King]]<br />
*[[Albert Einstein]] (assumed)<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html</ref><br />
*[[Steve Wozniak]]<br />
<br />
== Agnostic population and health habits ==<br />
<br />
''For more information please see:'' [[Agnosticism, obesity and self-esteem]]<br />
<br />
[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|180px|right|thumbnail|Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> Thus, it appears as if agnostics/non-religious are more prone to becoming [[obese]] than very religious individuals.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<small>(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])</small> ]]<br />
According to the [[Gallup Organization]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref><br />
<br />
Gallup further declares:<br />
{{cquote|Very religious [[American]]s make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts across all four of the Healthy Behavior Index metrics, including [[smoking]], [[healthy eating]], and regular exercise. Smoking is one area of particular differentiation between the very religious and less religious Americans, with the nonreligious 85% more likely to be smokers than those who are very religious.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>}}<br />
<br />
Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity, thus it appears as if agnostics/non-religious may be more prone to becoming [[obese]] than very religious individuals.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref><br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]<br />
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]<br />
*[[Atheist factions]]<br />
*[[Atheism]]<br />
*[[Apatheism]]<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[category:religion]]<br />
[[category:philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:Agnosticism]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Friedrich_Engels&diff=920466Friedrich Engels2011-09-24T16:32:25Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Friedrich Engels''' (November 28, 1820 – August 5, 1895) was a [[German]] [[philosopher]] who collaborated with [[Karl Marx]] to provide the intellectual foundations of [[marxism|marxist]] [[communism]]. Engels finished the work on the second and third volumes of Marx's ''Das Kapital'' ("Capital") after Marx died.<br />
<br />
Like Marx, Engels lived most of his adult life in [[England]].<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Engels, Friedrich}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:German Philosophers]]<br />
[[Category:Economists]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Can_conservapedia_become_the_next_Wikipedia,_is_this_good_or_bad&diff=920443Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad2011-09-24T14:44:01Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{debate}}<br />
::<br />
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument. When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers. There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial. When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama. It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim. It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.<br />
<br />
I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale. The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.<br />
<br />
At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact. I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.<br />
::<br />
<br />
What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4<br />
<br />
Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1<br />
<br />
: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi<br />
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy<br />
<br />
:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.<br />
<br />
:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007<br />
<br />
:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::What Wikipedia should've been? As is stated above, Cp merely makes a bias in the opposite direction from Wp. Also, I've never seen a truly strong bias on Wikipedia, while on here, I've seen: Atheism and Deception, Atheism and Mental Health, Atheism and Charity, Atheism and Mass Murder, Atheism and Suicide, etc. In other words, Conservapedia goes out of their way to bash Atheism, while Christianity is all "fine and dandy". In other words, unless Cp has a complete change of heart, it can never become the next Wikipedia. [[User:KnightOfTheNight|KnightOfTheNight]] 21:31, 11 July 2009 (EDT)KnightOfTheNight<br />
<br />
Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Freethough13: ( i hope the name doesn't get me kicked off). if i may,<br />
it would be a tragic loss. i'm not argueing that wikipedia is liberal (which there is a reason. liberals are consiterably more likly to use the internet. ergo, they/i must at at least one time have a shift one way or another. the supposide liberalness of wikipedia is simply an effect, not an intentional fault itself. i back this off of me testing the theory of a liberal wikipedia. when i put in "Bush Sucks" on the Republican party, hell, even backed it up with sources, it blocked me.), but simply because of the outright, obveouse, pround, and incresingly strong right-wing bias. at least wikipedia has a less stringent intention of holding one political line or another.<br />
<br />
::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool. <br />
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.<br />
<br />
If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I don't think this site should be as big as Wikipedia, since it's simply a free online resource. No gimmicks. I'm a British atheist, and I'm not here to critize the idea behind this site. It's what makes the internet so wonderful: different opinions. However, this site is dangerously on the verge of becoming another parody of convervatist christians. You, the users, are blantantly making this site hostile to anyone with a different ideal, how will it ever grow or be taken seriously? Not everyone will agree, I don't, I personally think it's extremely homophobic, racist, elitist, sexist, shows bias and mispresents facts, but that's one opinion. In order to grow as an idea, embrace other ideals, no-ones asking you to stop being tories. But just lashing back with anti-foreign, hypocritcal retotrts is what makes me and everyone else dislike your ideas. Don't be like that. Embrace, isn't that what Jesus would do? Don't dare force ideals on anyone. Chris Roberts/chrisroberts<br />
<br />
For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.<br />
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008<br />
<br />
No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]<br />
<br />
:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78<br />
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a "Liberellapedia" to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of "honesty and fair-play" in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)<br />
<br />
: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.<br />
<br />
Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:<br />
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.<br />
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.<br />
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy. <br />
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.<br />
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!<br />
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.<br />
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same. <br />
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth. We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else. You won't be fooling anyone here.<br />
<br />
: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it. The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship. If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.<br />
<br />
I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested. <br />
<br />
Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 12:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Markr, you're not fooling anyone here. "AD" is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history. CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: This is a serious question, even though it'll probably come off as sounding sarcastic: why not endorse the Jewish calendar, with the current year of 5769 (possibly modified to use months/days from the Gregorian calendar with the year from the Jewish calendar)? That seems like it'd be the most historically correct from a religious/creationist standpoint. Is it just because 2008 is the more universally recognized year, and using the Jewish calendar would create confusion, or do you think that 2008 AD is more accurate than 5769? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: So how many people in the world use the Jewish calendar? Listen, if AD and BC offended the Islamic world, use of the Jewish calendar would be viewed as a virtual decleration of war upon Islam; you know how they hate Israel. If you, like a typical Liberal, are ignorant of current affairs in the Middle East, blinkered to facts by your obsession with tolerance and multiculturalism. The use of CE is similar to those who thought that a new language could be taught all around the world, in the name of goodwill and understanding and rainbows and etc. Why should a new language be created and taught when many people already speak English or Spanish or Chinese? Why not teach one of those instead of making up a foolish new one 'to prevent offense'? It's the same with CE; why make a new system when the world already has some it's comfortable with in the name of so-called 'tolernace'. It's just liberals making up problems again. With any luck, CE will fail as terribly as those artificial languages did too. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
CE has academic credibility; it's just not a necessary change, especially for American authors. Our audience is not academics, so we don't have to use their [[date formats]]. In years to come, we can make the change if our relationship to academia warrants it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
*(haven't read all the above posts...pardon the certain faux-pas's that I now make) Unless something seriously changes with the way the leadership of wikipedia forms it's relationships, I don't see how that place is going to keep going. [[Jimbo Wales]] figuratively and literally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_the_shark jumped the shark] when he allowed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2 User:FT2] to be a member of its "arbcom," or arbitration committee. When legitimate concerns were raised about FT2 personal interests--however untactful and poorly chosen the phrase "dog lover" may be--these were ignored and the editor was blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=255290603]. It's only now come to light because of a possible procedural/process violation, which is apparently no laughing matter over there. Maybe I'm still too much of a country mouse--no pun intended--but I can't see how anyone could support leadership who given full knowledge and evidence of moral bankruptcy, nevertheless, sees no reason to be far more careful with his relations or those of his organization. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 15:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It's interesting to see the comments above. One of the biggest things that I would change is to adapt a more neutral stance on the topics. This is a big thing. <br />
* As to the suffix AD or CE, I was taught to use AD. So for me it's easier to use. I prefer AD to CE because, as someone said it above, it worked for 2000 years. <br />
* As to whether or not this site can become as big or bigger than Wikipedia; I am a college student and my instructors told my class that using Wikipedia as a source is not allowed. I find this interesting. I've run across numerous articles that don't list a source or another place to find the information. <br />
* As to citing web articles, I think that's fine as long as the articles are properly cited. Defining what citation needs to be used (AMA, etc.) may help this problem. And citing numerous different sources is better than citing all conservative sources. <br />
* As was noted above, try to prevent both sides of the subject. You should be able to present your view in a more positive light by presenting both sides of the subject and then stating why you believe your side is better. While this may venture into opinion, it prevents having a strictly conservative bias.<br />
*My main purpose for visiting this site is to get an unbiased version of different topics. I've run across several severely biased articles on Wikipedia, so I won't go there for that topic. Other topics, like robotics or astronomy, I would go there for because they have lots of information about that topic that is common knowledge (like the formula to change Celsius to Kelvin) or is easily verifiable (such as physics or astronomy). I go there because this information is in one place. It also includes external links that I can start from to search for that topic off-site. For example, when researching robotics, there are 62 citations and changing to robot, several external links including encyclopedias and research societies. While robotics may not be as hot a topic as creationism, it would be a reason for someone to come here and do research. Maybe conservatives hold a different view of astronomy or robotics. How will I know if it's not listed?<br />
* As I'm reading this particular topic, some of the responses come across as vicious attacks on people. I don't care if your are from India, Britain, or the U.S., your comments should be responded to in a professional manner. This is NOT liberal media where responses are shouted down or changed. This is supposed to be a conservative view of popular topics. If you can't keep this professional, then you will lose lots of subscribers as well as persons just happening on this page. Eliminate Liberal bias? What about conservative bias? Ask [http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm]Bob Dudko from 103.5 in southeast Michigan how to present both sides of a topic while still defending what you believe. He does an excellent job.<br />
<br />
Summary... If you can present both sides of the topic in an intelligent manner with several citations, people will be more apt to use this site. Otherwise it will become a haven for extremists and fall off the map of every day people with conservative views.--[[User:KevinSSr|KevinSSr]] 22:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Regardless of what people think about Conservapedia, I think Conservapedia should become a free encylopedia where anyone can edit- where there is an equal representation of information from a conservative standpoint that would never be available from Wikipedia. We need to produce more information from both sides (conservative and democratic), and any prevention or hatred of the dissemination of conservative information is a hindrance to personal freedom, especially free speech. Conservapedia, regardless of how idiotic it can be, should be a good outlet for allowing people to disseminate their own conservative political ideas. But in my opinion, I strongly doubt that Conservapedia will replace Wikipedia, and I would disregard Conservapedia as being a better encyclopedia than Wikipedia. That's just my opinion. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]] 10:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==View from a longtime Wikipedian==<br />
Wikipedia succeeded because of three things, one of which Conservapedia possesses, the other two of which it ''could'' easily possess.<br />
<br />
* A dedicated body of core editors<br />
* Open editing<br />
* Open content<br />
<br />
Conservapedia already has a quite sizeable body of people who edit daily on a diverse range of subjects. This means that there is something to read on Conservapedia and the content grows as time goes on, and there is a sense of community about Conservapedia. Having some of the most experienced Wikipedians, like Ed Poor, around the place can only help in this regard.<br />
<br />
But one thing that is missing is open editing. It is this aspect of Wiki editing that Wikipedia successfully imported (with significant modifications) from traditional "Meatball-style" wikis, which means Wikipedia's rate of growth took off and its use became viral.<br />
<br />
At the moment on Conservapedia editing is closed, in the sense that if you discover an error or omission in an article, then you have to make an effort to register an account just to make a little tweak, add some new content, or even make a comment on the talk page about something that needs attention. It is impossible to overstate how costly that is for an encyclopedia.<br />
<br />
Okay, Conservapedia doesn't want to repeat the complete openness of Wikipedia, perhaps because of a perception that it would tend to fill up with trivia the way so many Wikipedia articles do, perhaps because of a feeling that this would invite vandals to trash the content, and perhaps because of a feeling that letting everybody edit every article would tend to dilute the political focus or even end up with what the Conservapedia community perceives to be a liberal bias in Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
But putting people through that routine just to make an edit is costly. In May, 2008, just over 1100 people took the trouble to create an account. About the same number created new accounts in October. That's not bad, but remember that accounts for every single edit by a new editor in each of those months. Worse, a good proportion of new editors never even get as far as editing. For whatever reason (perhaps they only wanted to be able to set preferences) they never got to the point of editing an article, so the number of first edits by new editors is probably less than 1000 per month, or about 30 per day. Spread across the articles that is a really tiny number of edits.<br />
<br />
Most of those who do edit only make one or two edits but that doesn't matter. The point is that they saw something that needed fixing and they fixed it. With open editing you'd get many more edits, and that would bring new content.<br />
<br />
There is a myth, sometimes encouraged by Jimbo Wales, that most of Wikipedia is built by just a few editors. That's wrong. Most ''featured articles'' are written substantially by a tiny subset of the tiny subset of people who come to Wikipedia and edit regularly--the community. After nearly eight years there are less than 2400 featured articles, and that accounts for less than one-tenth of one per cent of all Wikipedia articles.<br />
<br />
Actually there is evidence that ''most'' Wikipedia content seems to come from those so-called "anonymous IPs" that are so often denigrated as mere vandals by the regular users. See [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia this blog piece] by Aaron Swartz.<br />
<br />
The downside of open editing is that it does let in a fair amount of unwanted edits. You get a lot of good content but not all of it may be relevant or of suitable quality, and of course some of it is vandalism. It's a cost-benefit equation and you have to decide whether you're prepared to accept the culture changes that happen when, like Wikipedia, your community tools up to handle the unwanted material.<br />
<br />
Open ''content'' is another thing missing from Conservapedia, and it beats me why. Logically if I wanted to start a specialized website like Wikipedia but with different quality standards, I'd take a subset of Wikipedia's content and modify it. You can do that with Wikipedia's content because of the open license. It's a great way to get a lot of basically good content and bring it up to your own standard.<br />
<br />
Anyway, those are two suggestions for how to improve the way in which Conservapedia works, which I've learned as a Wikipedia editor. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I do not think Wikipedia is a viable educational resource. I find it to be a a gossip tree, a smear machine, and a trivia database. None of that is educational in a meaningful sense. Anonymous IPs are great for gossip, smears and trivia; they are destructive for education.<br />
<br />
: Conservapedia has always been an educational resource, and will continue on that path. We teach teenagers and adults. Hundreds and thousands of them. We learn ourselves in the process. Conservapedia is a place to share insights, advance knowledge, and open minds that are closed. I think we do that far better than Wikipedia, and will continue to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I think some of your criticisms of Wikipedia are valid (the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticisms of Wikipedia] documents most if not all criticisms that have been circulated in the mainstream press). But on most academic subjects, particularly science, the quality is extremely high, and the articles would be yours to take and modify to correct any imbalance if you adopted an open content policy compatible with their licence.<br />
<br />
:: Wikipedia does cover popular culture but that's a matter of deliberate policy, not an accidental result of permitting open editing. As for the notion that Wikipedia performs no educational function, that's unsustainable even on a cursory examination. Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Zinc&oldid=563001 Conservapedia's] articles on the metal Zinc, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hundred_Years_War&oldid=594609 Conservapedia's] articles on the Hundred Years War. As for Twelfth Night, the difference between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Night this article] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Twelfth_Night&oldid=456977 this one] could not be more graphic.<br />
<br />
:: The notion that having open editing would necessitate low quality just doesn't hold up. Wikipedia aspires to very stringent quality standards and the results, on the most important articles, is impressive by any measure.<br />
<br />
:: I won't venture further to criticise the quality of Conservapedia's content, because I think many of the site's users and admins have already brought this out. I do think you could do better. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 23:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
I agree with both of you equally, and I'm not just saying this to be "neutral". Here at CP we have no "neutrality policy": the core requirement is for articles to be trustworthy.<br />
<br />
We certainly do need to be able to share insights and advance knowledge. By doing this, we provide the opportunity for the undecided to maintain an open mind. It is only the far left and the far right that hope for the closing of the American mind (with apologies to [[Allen Bloom]]). <br />
<br />
I spent nearly all my spare time helping Wikipedia to grow, because I was learning in the process of helping others to learn. It also provided the basis for the success of the [[New World Encyclopedia]]. <br />
<br />
Tony, you are right when you stress the ability of anyone to edit any article any time. That is one of the essential elements that led to Wikipedia's exponential growth. But Andy is also right when he criticizes Wikipedia's viability as an educational resource. <br />
<br />
The bias of Wikipedia against religion (in general) and against non-leftist ideology (in both politics and science) is just as crippling as having a leg shot off with a cannonball. The anti-elitism, which Larry Sanger pointed out so eloquently, is like having the other leg cut off with a sword. Forgive the violent imagery, but this is a debate page, so I figure I'm entitled to a little slack, eh?<br />
<br />
Tony, you are also right when you say that Wikipedia has acknowledged most of the criticisms. This is crucially important, as it will determine when and if Wikipedia can ever reform. Wikipedia took a big hit when the arbcom decided to brand me a "tendentious" editor, when all I was doing was correcting violations of NPOV policy. I could have appealed to Jimbo, but I chose not to. Now, I'm not saying I'm a particularly important person; I'm more like a "poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage". But it was the Principle which they violated. Instead of thanking the revealer, they condemned him. (Once again, remember that this is not about me: I am not claiming to be a martyr. I'm fine.) They repeated the mistake of the Greeks who condemned Socrates. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia is not going to go away. But it will not be respected as an encyclopedic resource until it solves its chief problems. And Conservapedia can help it, if it is willing to accept this help. <br />
<br />
I applaud the high quality of Wikipedia on most academic subjects, but "most" means 51% - not 99.9%. There are glaring errors in every [[politicized science]] article, and materialism (disguised as "methodological naturalism") fuels this. Users like FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua actually '''prevent''' the very open editing you espouse. All edits on significant scientific subjects are subject to the liberal filter of what Wikipedia itself calls "tag team editing". Its article series on [[global warming]] is the laughingstock of the scientific community. How can you have the gall to say there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of blatant pseudoscience? What percentage of climate scientists have to sign a petition or be surveyed before Wikipedia will admit that the science isn't settled? By failing to apply NPOV to the world's most prominent [[scientific debate]], Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot (or would, if it had legs to stand on ;-) and nullifies all its other work. People judge an encyclopedia by its most glaring mistakes. <br />
<br />
Wikipedia has profited from open editing, and it will continue to do so to the extent that it lives up to its own creed. But using the "undue weight" policy to undermine neutrality has the effect of censoring minority opinions - even in articles dedicating to describing those minority opinions!<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'm glad you're here and that you have (apparently) forgiven our initial lack of welcome. I look forward to more conversations with you about how CP and/or WP can improve. And bring your friends! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 06:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Taking your complaint about a "liberal filter" operating on Wikipedia, well if you think about it that gives a counter-argument to the notion that open editing leads to anarchy. Your experience is that a policy you disagree with (due weight), and editing practices you don't like ("tag teaming"--which incidentally is ''not'' considered to be a problem by Wikipedia's policies) has led to an outcome you think reflects badly on Wikipedia. This demonstrates that open editing is a relatively weak force in the presence of strong motivation and policy. It introduces diversity, but not (in the case of Wikipedia's science coverage, at least) at the expense of control.<br />
<br />
: And of course I don't want to see Conservapedia become like Wikipedia. I don't think open editing and open content would make Conservapedia Wikipedia, because its policies and focus are fundamentally different.<br />
<br />
: We could argue about the quality of science coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't really want to hijack this page for that side issue. Suffice to say that an analysis published in ''Nature'' found the quality of the science coverage on Wikipedia (including the article on global warming) to be comparable to that of Britannia. The notion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Wikipedia's coverage of global warming] is anomalous can be exploded by a cursory examination of [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/global_warming.html Encarta's article on the subject], and [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming Britannica's]. There are subtle differences of emphasis in all three articles, but they all reflect the IPCC consensus and all provide a good introduction to the subject. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 09:45, 6 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Tony. You have given me food for thought. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:51, 7 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
Tony, you're right about one thing: the "policies and focus" of Conservapedia and Wikipedia "are fundamentally different." Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, is not a legitimate or helpful educational resource. It is a mixture of gossip, trivia, and [[censorship]] by atheists. I'd guess that you're an undisclosed atheist who is typical of the editors who dominate Wikipedia. Most of us wouldn't send our children to an atheistic school, and for same reason most of us have abandoned Wikipedia for any real learning.<br />
<br />
Feel free to compare Wikipedia and Conservapedia in five years. All atheistic countries and organizations unravel, or worse. It will be like comparing the atheistic former East Germany to the United States. It won't be a pretty comparison for Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I think we've all aired our opinions. Thanks to Ed and Andy for that. But Andy, you raise a personal matter concerning my religious beliefs.<br />
<br />
: I'm only an "undisclosed" atheist in the sense that I don't mention my religious beliefs (or lack of same) except where it's relevant. I sent my children to a regular English school where religion was an integral part of the curriculum. School events such as musical concerts were held across the road in a beautiful Congregationalist church, the [[Union Chapel, Islington]]. I'll write an article about that edifice. I don't know whether you'd consider such a school "atheistic".<br />
<br />
: Likewise I don't think Wikipedia is atheistic so much as secular, as is the government of the United States (and I don't think either is in imminent danger of collapse). You will find [[Christianity|Christians]], [[Hinduism|Hindus]], [[Buddhism|Buddhists]], [[Islam|Muslims]], [[Judaism|Jews]], [[Wicca|Wiccans]], and people who like myself don't have any religious beliefs, working alongside one another in Wikipedia as in the US government. I don't think it's at all correct to describe such [[pluralism]] as "atheistic". --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 13:07, 7 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Tony, of course an atheist is going to like an atheistic resource like Wikipedia, and even argue that it is unbiased. Republicans think that George Bush has been a good and fair president, and Democrats tent to think that Barack Obama will be a good and fair president. No surprise, obviously.<br />
<br />
:: But you didn't disclose your point of view until I elicited it. And that is a basic problem with Wikipedia. Its key entries are mostly controlled by atheists without admitting it. No meaningful criticism of the theory of evolution, for example, will ever be allowed by the atheists on Wikipedia. No explanation of how atheists censor prayer in the classroom will ever be presented. The undisclosed bias permeates many key entries on Wikipedia and renders it unusable as an objective learning source. If the bias were disclosed, then it would be more useful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: My point of view shouldn't matter in this discussion if my arguments are sound. You will find a neutral discussion of the process by which mandatory prayer, once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the Establishment Clause, in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer Wikipedia article on School Prayer]. None of the key cases involved atheists as parties (with the exception of the case ''Murray v. Curlett'' which was consolidated with a case involving a [[Unitarian]], ''Abington School District v. Schempp'' (1963)). All of them involved conflicts on religious observance between adherents of different, mostly Christian, religious sects. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 15:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Tony, [[atheism]] certainly does slant one's opinions. You can't even discuss the [[theory of evolution]] in an objective manner, because you'll desperately insist that it ''must'' somehow be true no matter what the evidence is. You and your fellow Wikipedians will censor all meaningful criticism of the theory. Ditto for prayer in the classroom: atheists insist on censoring, and deny that is what they are doing. The biased Wikipedia entry, which itself admits it lacks quality, does not use the word "censor" once and is permeated with distortions and falsehoods, thanks to the atheists who insist that Wikipedia represent their point of view.<br />
<br />
:::: I'm not trying to persuade you. I am telling you that the majority of the world, and the vast majority of productive people, do not want an atheistic teaching source, which is what Wikipedia is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
(unindent) On some points, I see us talking past each other. Two religious issues raised include the distinction between atheistic and secular outlooks, and the distinction between mandatory and optional prayer. <br />
<br />
I think Andy is right about atheism taking hold at Wikipedia, which was co-founded by two atheists: [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]]. At first, they agreed that Wikipedia would be neutral on all religious questions including the existence of God and the ability of supernatural forces/beings to influence the physical world. Somehow that changed, and the "secular" perspective of Wikipedia's articles on issues crucial to the 40% to 85% of Americans who have disagreements with [[Evolution]] has trumped NPOV. The naturalism and materialism of [[physical science]] is taken as a given, rather than made explicit. <br />
<br />
On a minor point, I noticed that Andy said ''atheists censor prayer in the classroom'' while Tony replied with a reminder that "[[mandatory prayer]], once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the [[Establishment Clause]]". Tony, did you know that Andy is a lawyer? He's probably familiar with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings about religious issues. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
Truth is not a poll. Conservapedia has a conservative view, yes, but it is in truth. Wikipedia accepts evolution as truth, and in that view it exalts everything that agrees with that view, and disagrees with any counter view. As far as Obama, they are questions that need to be answered, that obviously the liberal side would rather cover and ignore. Here is a challenge, go to You Tube and in the search put Barack Obama, and on the list that comes up, rate how many positive videos come up, and how many negative on the first page. Now do the same with Sarah Palin. Notice how the rate of positive versus negative viewpoints change with her.<br />
<br />
So to find the TRUTH, it is not about being all inclusive or being politically correct. There is no such thing as objective news anymore because the world has become split on God vs No God, so the correct thing to do is become the best God believing information center in the world.<br />
<br />
: Put another way, if someone wants to wander in confusion amid the self-serving lies promoted by atheists, they go to Wikipedia. I think studies show that atheism makes one less charitable and more depressed; [[Nietzsche]], the leading atheist of the 19th century, went crazy. If someone wants the truth and the freedom and [[faith]] that brings, they come here. Ultimately, each person decides for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
Not likely. In this day and age, we will receive relentless ridicule and scourn from the mainstream media and other sources. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the issue. I am a former liberal and a former agnostic, although I was never cared much about politics until I became a conservative.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
I would agree<br />
<br />
No, it cannot. CP's ideological bias is deliberate and overt, as opposed to Wikipedia's emergent, incidental bias, which undermines the average reader's confidence in CP's information. Wikipedia may be editable by anyone, but CP is guaranteed to contain information that advances a conservative agenda. If there existed a Liberalpedia, it would be just as untrustworthy, but Wikipedia is not such a being. On the day it institutes a "Conservative Tricks" page, we'll talk. -- [[User:Osiris1723|Osiris1723]] 00:31, 21 June 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Incidental bias, what a lovely word. Maybe you would think different if you read http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia They have the most pages on the internet, clap clap clap. I truly believe they have the most anti-God pages as well. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)<br />
:::::Likeminded people who agree with Osirus1723, where is the external link section of Wikipedia's Criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism Why don't you test your hypothesis that the ideological bias at Wikipedia is incidental? Test it as soon as you read this message by adding a external link section to the Wikipedia criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: While, I would agree that there is some bias in Wikipedia, for a number of reasons, I would like to point out that there ''are'' external links on the article you posted. They're in the reference section, including [http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm this link to a Catholic site], [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html this article from the Christian Science Monitor], and [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=44990 this debate between the author of an extreme atheist book and a theologian at Christianity Today]. I think that the existence of the article itself is at least an attempt to have genuine neutrality on Wikipedia, even if it isn't perfect. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 12:03, 1 July 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The movement toward being as big as Wikipedia will be a tough road. We must follow Ezekiel 2:23 because the way it is written tells us how we can become great and rise above. The downfall of this site will be the sins of homosexuals in their quest to "gay" up the internet. We must work to keep this page solely conservative and keep it to inform the masses the right way, and be better than Liberal Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
*I agree with the original poster. This site is going in the opposite direction by applying conservative bias where Wikipedia applies liberal bias. I also disagree with the decision to avoid rules about how to edit. Wikipedia's rules are actually pretty sensible, use a neutral point of view (which does not mean no POV, merely using neutral wording), consensus (which is supposed to involve reasons based on other guidelines, not just a matter of unreasoned, unbased disagreement with an edit - which unfortunately happens on Wikipedia), and no original research (meaning everything is to be backed up, and views given prominence based solely on sourcing). It's actually a good set of rules. <br />
<br />
The problem is there's no accountability for admins who don't follow them. What Wikipedia really needs to do is set forth which rules are permissible as an objection to an edit, and require that those who don't provide solid reasoning from this can't be considered as part of the consensus. As Andrew Schafly has said, the result is that Wikipedia can end up acting like a lynch mob. There also needs to be a specific commission just for investigating situations where consensus is occurring without reason. Without that, there's no accountability.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I think Conservapedia can become as big as Wikipedia. However, it must seek to start being objective. That can still mean presenting conservative criticisms, but try to present them in order of relevance, meaning directly correlated to their number of reliable sources, and if presented at all otherwise, stick them in a "Minor Controversies" section at the bottom of a page. <br />
<br />
Conservapedia must first make its main articles objective and seek to discipline users who shout down others when they are providing well-sourced or reasonable objections. The community must be made fair, in other words, as well as accessible. The Barack Obama article in particular needs a top-down rewriting. After this is done, seek to reform Conservapedia's image as an objective source of information, and a reliable alternative to Wikipedia. Perhaps search engines like Yahoo might be willing to work a deal with Conservapedia so Conservapedia results are shown higher, just as Google did with Wikipedia. However, such a deal would never be considered until Conservapedia makes articles more objective and attracts enough editors to expand its number of pages with quality material. <br />
<br />
It would be a long road taking at least 5-10 years for this to even begin. I am willing to help, but want to see Conservapedia begin changing its primary articles and its level of objectivity first. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 09:56, 30 December 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
While I believe CP can eventually grow to be very large, I don't think it will surpass Wikipedia because we, unlike them, support the '''truth''' which certainly does not masquerade as neutrality. Many people are sucked in to Wikipedia by the claim that it is neutral, mostly pseudo - intellectuals who will only further its [[liberal bias]]. We can, however, surpass Wikipedia in the search results as we already have done with many pages. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:33, 29 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Conservapedia's major problem at this time is lack of articles and information. For this reason I view it not as an encyclopedia, but as a political web page. One example of this is my recent research into "presque isle state park" located in PA. Wikipedia has a nice article that explains the park as it is today, it's history, War of 1812, etc... Conservapedia had no article at all! If Conservapedia is to become a better source of info, they must employ people who will get that article and countless others loaded into the system. Conservapedia must do away with the strong bias in favor of conservatism because it is simply a turn-off for most editors. A good place to start would be re-writing the article about the current President (Obama). The article starts out "allegedly born in Honolulu August 4, 1961" which is a theory that has been debunked numerous times by respected members of both political parties and also the more conservative media outlets. When a neutral reader looks at this, he or she is probably turned off by the article and moves on to Wikipedia. Just food for thought!<br />
:First of all, Jtsnowde, I don't see you, or anyone else for that matter, coming into Conservapedia and writing articles such as "presque isle state park"; they are coming in because they are intolerant of conservatism, and they restrict themselves to either trying to force upon this site their opinions related to liberalism, atheism, socialism, religion, or science, or just sit back in their easy chairs to engage in harassment. More than 95% or Conservapedia is meant to be a general-interest encyclopedia, which means everybody coming in - including yourself - has that capability. But like the others, you're engaging in the debate ''against'' the site rather than contributing to it. Second, as to Obama's birth certificate, you know full-well that the theories were never debunked; if they were, then the general public would be looking at his original long-form birth certificate right now, and the controversy would be over and done with.<br />
:I challenge you right now to do an article on [[Presque Isle State Park]] right now; make it a stand-alone article that's completely original. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:00, 11 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Unfortunately, the above poster seems to have been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJtsnowde blocked] for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=804046 removing] an unkind (though fairly accurate) statement from the article on Biden. A rather hasty decision by DouglasA, albeit practical.<br />
::At any rate, Karajou, I believe your response has demonstrated the underlying point of the preceding argument. Conservapedia endorses certain positions in many areas, most of which are heavily politicized. Several of the positions are also pivotal areas in one's life: religion in particular, followed by political affiliations and so forth. Further, Conservapedia is not at all likely to forsake its positions such topics, particularly those fundamental to its cause. As it also rejects the concept of "neutral point of view", a great deal of visitors may well find at least a few of its major articles objectionable.<br />
::Because of this, many visitors are unlikely to rely on Conservapedia for igeneral information, presuming that its other articles will be written from a similarly disfavored viewpoint, or that the site exists only for political reasons. Those who stay to edit substantially will generally focus primarily on political and religious issues, because these are essentially the basis of Conservapedia. Those who do not agree will, in turn, likely attempt to reconcile existing articles with their personal viewpoints; as Conservapedia will not fundamentally change, they may well become frustrated and hostile, or simply leave. Editors who do not particularly care about the subject are likely to gravitate toward Wikipedia as a more established site that does not openly state any religious or political agenda.<br />
::Basically, I believe Conservapedia lacks general articles because its fundamental purpose is rather specialized: its information should suit a conservative, (Judeo-)Christian, creationist, American point of view (among other stances in regard to climate change, astronomy, relativity, etc). As Aschlafly is fond of quoting, "all issues are political issues"; most editors here seem to focus heavily on politics, which in turn encourages further focus by incoming editors.<br />
::Apologies if I'm off-track or reiterating anything. My response, of course, is largely borne of resentment to the suggestion that those who disagree with (or merely do not contribute to) Conservapedia are necessarily misguided. I don't believe CP will become a comprehensive encyclopedia without considerably toning down focus on politics (particular the front page's news segments) and its tone of hostility toward those who disagree with it in minor ways (though of course I wouldn't suggest ''withholding'' your beliefs, except perhaps those that paint [[liberal|your political opponents]] as despicable fools).<br />
::Oh, and as a final afterthought...you might gain more articles if you simply ban objectionably "liberal" editors from controversial topics, rather than from the entire site. At least a few of them might continue to contribute. You also might ''convince'' more liberals if you remove the "90/10" rule, which essentially prevents non-conservative participation in any locked or remotely controversial articles. ~ [[User:Kupochama|Kupochama]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kupochama|[1]]][[Special:Contributions/Kupochama|[2]]]</sup> 15:19, 11 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
:::You're failing to understand several things here. The first is that we have a history of those people who only want to get involved in the political side of this site; they want nothing to do with creating articles on butterflies or kitty cats or teddy bears or the salinity of the Great Salt Lake. And unless some liberal does a repeat of Obama's inaugural and dumps a load of trash into the Great Salt Lake, most of the content of this site is apolitical. Second, you are representing a website that has in the past tried to destroy this website by any means possible and continues to do so today. That means whatever you and your liberal kind has to say about the freedom of speech is tossed out the window. And it's all because they could not take being kicked off of this site when they tried forcing their beliefs on us and failed. As to the 90/10 rule, again there's too many people who talk and talk and talk, when they refuse to help build.<br />
:::You are here from RW, Kupochama, again trying to get us to change our ways, when you and your kind should be changing yours. And right now, every attack from you people, every act of vandalism, every piece of hostility, every single lie your kind has uttered in word and deed ''is only proving our point and the reason for this site's existence''. You you go ahead and bring it on. Prove us right every time. Prove to the entire world that a liberal is someone who cannot be trusted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:32, 11 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Every encyclopedia has a bias; the point is to be aware of the bias so that contributions can help the reader find the information they are looking for. Of course, at CP we believe in God; hence, we oppose atheism, the (unfounded and unprovable) assertion that there is no God. We also have standard, "goes without saying" positions on political and scientific issues. Our aim is to be trustworthy rather than "neutral".<br />
<br />
::::Jimbo and Larry's Wikipedia (and even Larry's ill-fated Citizendium spin-off) do not succeed in presenting topics without bias, where it counts most: on political and scientific controversies. Wikipedia is openly anti-creationist; frequently anti-American (and anti-Israel); and toes the liberal line on climate change. Not only does WP marginalize views which depart from its "consensus", it even censors them.<br />
<br />
:::::I note the theory of evolution is not a law of nature, creationism in turn seeks to explain using an alternate theory how we got here. The debate on wikipedia is simply that creationism is one of faith (what you believe) as opposed to a theory backed up by scientific evidence. As a geologist I am disinclined to believe the earth is 6000 years old.[[User:Pinkfloyd|Pinkfloyd]] 22:43, 1 March 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::To our credit, I think I can say that we at least '''mention''' the views we disagree with, and usually even give the evidence and reasoning that the supporters of those views have advanced. We here, unlike the biased majority at Wikipedia, trust our readers to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, objective fact and propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:40, 15 August 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If CP becomes the new wikipedia, then it will be a sad world indeed.--[[User:LordDagon|LordDagon]] 14:14, 26 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Federated POV encyclopedias ==<br />
The main problem I can see with Wikipedia is NPOV - it wants to adopt a 'neutral' point of view, but it seems doubtful a truly neutral point of view exists. I think a better option is a federation of multiple POV encyclopedias, each with a different POV. So you can have the conservative encyclopedia, the liberal encyclopedia, the communist encyclopedia, the atheist encyclopedia, the nazi encyclopedia, the Jewish encyclopedia, the Catholic encyclopedia, the creationist encyclopedia, the evolutionist encyclopedia, etc., and so on we go. Each person can go to the POV they want (or they want right now). POV encyclopedias can trade articles - you can take an article from one POV and edit it to suit another. I think MediaWiki already has some support for such article trading (Special:Import, Special:Export, etc.), but it could add more features in this area - e.g. autoimport new revisions from another encyclopedia (e.g. Wikipedia), but put them in some special separate namespace, with comparison tools between the two. So if I am writing my encyclopedia with a particular POV, I can keep track of what the other POV encyclopedias are saying, and copy what seems relevant to my POV across. And then, when they make new changes, I can keep on reviewing those, and see if I want to copy that too. So, in that view, no particular wiki-based encyclopedia is the future, but rather a federation of differing POV encyclopedias, co-operating when useful and competing when useful - neither co-operation nor competition, but co-opetition. --[[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:26, 26 March 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Free speech means allowing the competition of ideas, such that over time good wins out. As you imply, a rule of "NPOV" is a non-starter from the get-go. Often "NPOV" can just be a ruse to enforce an undisclosed ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:47, 26 March 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The concept of Conservapedia and it's tagline as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is somewhat incorrect. The collation of articles with a specific bias (in this case, those falling to th (far) right of the Political spectrum) does not an accurate encyclopedia make. The whole objective of an encyclopedia is to present unbiased as possible information on everything pertaining to a subject (such as a Medical or Economics Encyclopedia) or that of a book-Encyclopedia, like you'd find in your nearest library.{{unsigned|Comradejrew}}<br />
:That's assuming you place any credence in the [[Political spectrum theory]], which is only a theory, and like all theories, are just only theories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 30 May 2011 (EDT)</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_Mass_Murder&diff=920440Talk:Atheism and Mass Murder2011-09-24T14:29:06Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Anti-Theism and Mass Murder? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Anti-Theism and Mass Murder?==<br />
<br />
Not all communist were atheist. Stalin was an admitted deist, Hitler a self-proclaimed Catholic. They were both anti-theist (towards religion other than their own). This article should be renamed "Anti-Theism and Mass Murder"<br />
: Hitler was an atheist and believer in evolution. He was also a proven liberal. Don't try and split hairs to support your liberal agenda. Open your eyes and embrace God! [[User:Myrobi|Myrobi]] 09:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
Just a quick correction to the preceding comments: Stalin was an atheist and Hitler was a catholic who later eventually despised God in his later years (but that's my opinion and it is still unconfirmed). Hitler was a fascist, not a liberal. Hitler was a Right winged socialist (AKA Fascist and Statist dictator; Liberal on economic issues, but conservative on social issues). Hitler would've been your typical demopublican. He endorsed imperialism and genocide through his promotion of scientific racism. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]] 10:29, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=="Who cares what liberals think?"==<br />
<br />
Personally, I found Malirin's contribution to this passage to be rather valid, and especially the first paragraph struck me as particularly well-written. The second paragraph could have used better wording. But to see this whole passage reverted with just a "Who cares what liberals think" saddens me. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 22:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)<br />
:Conservapedia is not a dumping ground for liberal and atheist apologetics and excuses. If readers ''really'' want that, they can head on over to wikipedia and drink their fill. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 22:46, 26 February 2010 (EST<br />
<br />
==Offensive?==<br />
<br />
Does it not occur to anyone that to suggest that to suggest that atheists are more likely to kill masses of people is offensive? Hitler was a very sick man, and everyone knows that, but it doesn't mean that every atheist is as sick as that. It is also constantly asserted that to disagree with this article means that the person disagreeing is automatically dumping their liberal agenda. There are plenty of religious liberal persons, as there are non-religious conservatives. <br />
<br />
It must also be mentioned that there have been MANY killers of masses that were religious. <br />
--[[User:thedrunkencat|thedrunkencat]]<br />
:We don't care if atheists are offended. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:32, 21 March 2010 (EDT)<br />
Why not? {{unsigned|Joaanes}}<br />
<br />
:Because the truth (and forgiveness) is a more important value than speculation about whether someone may be offended by it.<br />
<br />
:Also, feigned offense is used as a tool of [[censorship]]. Often the offense is fictional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 13 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sorry for being so blunt. If atheists do not like the truth here well than they have hate for what is written. Should we care they're upset? No. We do care- just not how you want us to. We refuse to confirm you in your sin. We want your conversion and your rightful place in the afterlife, Heaven.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:19, 13 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::cat, thanks for the input, I added some additional clarification. You input was very helpful as I added some additional data concerning the connection between atheism and mass murder. In addition, I recommended some books on Soviet atheism as well. Also, if there is not a "see also" link to atheism and uncharitableness, I will add that now. Again, thank you for your input. Lastly, please feel free to write an article on [[Soviet atheism]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:39, 13 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Cat, I also added this resource to the main atheism article: [http://www.isreligion.org/pdf/froese_russia.pdf Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed] Given that you claim to want to be fair, if you want to demonstrate your claimed fairness by putting together a quality Conservapedia article on [[Forced secularization]], Conservapedia would be most indebted to you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:01, 14 May 2010<br />
::::::::::Cat, I also added this excellent resource to this article and the main atheism article: [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history] by [[Dinesh D'Souza]]. Given that you displayed an interest in being fair minded, I would certainly suggest reading that article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:19, 14 May 2010 (EDT)</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&diff=920423Talk:Jimmy Wales2011-09-24T14:07:06Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Jimmy Wales sounds ignorant concerning his actual political stance. */</p>
<hr />
<div>A men's portal? Would that be things like boxing, and suitcoats, and aftershave? Here we call things what they are. It may have been soft porn, but it was still in the business of sex sells. Also, if you are reverted and you revert back a minute later without using this section, you might as well be slamming the door on your own behind... and you'll have no one to blame but yourself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:54, 23 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Objectivist=Atheist? ==<br />
<br />
It says in the beginning of this article that an objectivist is a type of Atheist. This is incorrect. Objectivistism is not a theological philosophy either. It is a statement that things are as they are whether we think so or not. It is a practical philosophy that does not claim any truth, such as theism or naturalism. Does anyone else agree, before I change it?<br />
<br />
I agree. Though it is probably fair to say that most Objectivists are atheists, they are not equivelant. --[[User:Mjbauer95|Mjbauer95]] 23:38, 27 March 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Jimmy Wales sounds ignorant concerning his actual political stance. ==<br />
<br />
Jimmy Wales ignorantly declares that he is both a [[libertarian]] (someone who endorses liberal concepts of social and personal freedom, while usually advocating [[laissez faire]] economics and [[individualism|individualistic]] self governance-AKA [[Minarchism]] or [[Anarchism]]) while also being a proponent of communitarianism. These two political ideologies are totally different from each other, because communitarianists support views that are relatively equal to authoritarian and [[statism|statist]] ideologies. Communitarianism supports social and moral conservatism, while endorsing [[leftist]] economic policies (AKA economic statism and [[collectivism]]). IF this article is true in regards to what Jimmy Wales actually believes, then Jimmy Wales is ignorant in politics. You can't be both a communitarian and a libertarian. Just my opinion. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]] 10:03, 24 September 2011 (EDT)</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&diff=920420Talk:Jimmy Wales2011-09-24T14:03:45Z<p>Nashhinton: /* Jimmy Wales sounds ignorant concerning his actual political stance. */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>A men's portal? Would that be things like boxing, and suitcoats, and aftershave? Here we call things what they are. It may have been soft porn, but it was still in the business of sex sells. Also, if you are reverted and you revert back a minute later without using this section, you might as well be slamming the door on your own behind... and you'll have no one to blame but yourself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:54, 23 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Objectivist=Atheist? ==<br />
<br />
It says in the beginning of this article that an objectivist is a type of Atheist. This is incorrect. Objectivistism is not a theological philosophy either. It is a statement that things are as they are whether we think so or not. It is a practical philosophy that does not claim any truth, such as theism or naturalism. Does anyone else agree, before I change it?<br />
<br />
I agree. Though it is probably fair to say that most Objectivists are atheists, they are not equivelant. --[[User:Mjbauer95|Mjbauer95]] 23:38, 27 March 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Jimmy Wales sounds ignorant concerning his actual political stance. ==<br />
<br />
Jimmy Wales ignorantly declares that he is both a [[libertarian]] (someone who endorses liberal concepts of social and personal freedom, while usually advocating [[laissez faire]] economics and [[indivualism|individualistic]] self governance-AKA [[Minarchism]] or [[Anarchism]]) while also being a proponent of communitarianism. These two political ideologies are totally different from each other, because communitarianists support views that are relatively equal to authoritarian and [[statism|statist]] ideologies. Communitarianism supports social and moral conservatism, while endorsing [[leftist]] economic policies (AKA economic statism and [[collectivism]]). IF this article is true in regards to what Jimmy Wales actually believes, then Jimmy Wales is ignorant in politics. You can't be both a communitarian and a libertarian. Just my opinion. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]] 10:03, 24 September 2011 (EDT)</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Nashhinton&diff=907271User:Nashhinton2011-08-29T17:53:34Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi, My name is Nash. I enjoy reading the articles on Conservapedia. Sometimes I edit or create new pages that need to be created or modified.<br />
<br />
I enjoy reading about [[religion]], [[eschatology]], [[philosophy]], and [[psychology]], and [[science]]. My thanks goes out to Conservapedia for making a great website.</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Positivism&diff=907254Positivism2011-08-29T16:18:22Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Positivism''' is the [[Philosophy|philosophical]] [[theory]] that the only things that are [[Truth|true]] are those that have been directly experienced. Positivism also asserts that [[empiricism]] and the [[scientific method]] are the best approaches to uncovering the validity of scientific postulations about the universe ([[natural science|natural sciences]]) and questions about human behavior and social functioning ([[social sciences]]). <br />
<br />
[[Category: Philosophy]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Empiricism&diff=907253Empiricism2011-08-29T16:05:50Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Empiricism''' is a [[philosophy|philosophical position]] which only considers [[information]] that is available to the [[senses]] as valid. It forms the foundation of the [[scientific method]].<br />
<br />
While the philosophy itself is at odds with the [[spiritual]] aspects of [[religion]], [[science]] is not, in that science only studies what is empirically observable, and has nothing to say about that which is not.<br />
<br />
[[category:Philosophy]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Positivism&diff=907252Positivism2011-08-29T16:04:22Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Positivism''' is the [[Philosophy|philosophical]] [[theory]] that the only things that are [[Truth|true]] are those that have been directly experienced. Positivism also asserts that [[empiricism]] and the [[scientific method]] is the best approach to uncovering the validity of scientific postulations about the universe ([[natural science|natural sciences]]) and questions about human behavior and social functioning ([[social sciences]]). <br />
<br />
[[Category: Philosophy]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Benefits_of_capitalism&diff=907067Benefits of capitalism2011-08-28T22:25:32Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Capitalism]] has many benefits compared to other economic forms.<br />
<br />
#In general, capitalism produces more wealth.<br />
#Capitalism actively rewards positive traits like hard work and ingenuity. Similarly, it punishes negative traits such as laziness and theft.<br />
#Capitalism is more compatible with [[democracy]] than other systems. In fact, there are few republics or democracies in the modern world that are not capitalistic.<br />
#Capitalism is more compatible with [[Christianity]] than other systems.<br />
#[[Free market]]s are the natural state of trade. Unlike [[socialism]], which requires government interference, capitalism can develop naturally. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have smaller governments.<br />
#Free markets can conduct certain functions that are normally handled by the government. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be more efficient and free from government control.<br />
#The competition between markets and businesses will create more productivity in the work place, allowing the rate of technological innovation to increase. This will cause the society to advance while the costs of goods and services will decrease.<br />
#Governments in capitalist societies tend to generate more wealth, since more wealth is being produced. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to be stronger.<br />
#Capitalist societies usually do not have large [[black market]]s. Therefore, capitalist societies tend to have less crime.<br />
#Capitalist nations promote free trade allowing more nations to cooperatively work together for more economic liberty. This will likely mitigate disputes between nations.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Economics]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sociology&diff=901457Sociology2011-08-16T02:47:14Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Sociology}}<br />
'''Sociology''' is a branch of the Social Sciences concerned with the study of human behavior and society, specifically in social relations, using the scientific method of observation. Sociology, with psychology, is at the crux of the long standing Nature vs. Nurture debate. Sociology, for the most part represents nurture and psychology partially represents nature. There are exceptions to this however. Trait theory and biochemistry theory in criminology represent nature, while behaviorism represents nurture<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
The term sociology was coined by [[Auguste Comte]] in 1839. Comte is also the father of [[positivism]]. <ref> Pickering, M. (2007). Auguste Comte. In J. Scott (Ed.), ''Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists'' (pp. 21-26). New York: Routledge.</ref> Comte's theory of positivism limits knowledge to the observable, and is crucial in approaching sociology as a science. The study of society dates back to Greek philosophers, however it was not distinguished as its own field of study until Comte.<br />
<br />
==Key Theories==<br />
There are a number of formative theorists who laid the groundwork for sociology, who have had a great deal of influence in Sociology through the following key theories:<br />
<br />
===Conflict Theory===<br />
[[Conflict theory]] strives to explain social facts in terms of different groups competing for control of resources, or advantages. This process occurs on macro levels, such as class groups, and tries to explain stability and change in terms of the conflict between these macro level structures. Two central premises to this theory are that privileged groups are working to maintain their privileges, while the disadvantaged are constantly trying to attain more. [[Karl Marx]] is regarded as the father of conflict theory, and the idea of human society. Communism is the modern day incarnation of Marx ideal human society. Central to the ideas of conflict theory are that by eliminating privilege, the overall welfare of the society can be increased. That is, a true equality amongst members of a society. Through class consciousness, Marx believed that the workers would eventually recognize they were being exploited, and put an end to privilege. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society: sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><br />
<br />
'''Key Figures:''' Karl Marx, [[Frederich Engels]]<br />
<br />
;Notable works include<br />
:''Das Kapital'' by Karl Marx<br />
:''The Communist Manifesto'' by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels<br />
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber<br />
<br />
===Functionalism===<br />
[[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach. In essence, social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behavior; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref><br />
<br />
Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behavior takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.<br />
<br />
'''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]<br />
<br />
;Notable works include<br />
:''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte<br />
:''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim<br />
:''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton<br />
<br />
===Symbolic Interactionism===<br />
As one of the key theories in Sociology, [[Symbolic Interactionism|symbolic interactionism]] concerns itself with social interaction in microlevel settings, unlike conflict theory and functionalism. Symbolic interactionism assumes that person's social behavior occurs only in the context of the subjective meanings he or she attach to his or her social position. It is important to note however, that the social position of the individual is influenced by his or her own actions; one does not simply ''react'' to one's position in society. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><br />
<br />
Example: Weber's work ''The Protestant Ethic'' is a prime example of symbolic interactionism. Weber looked at the roots of modern capitalism in Protestant asceticism. Weber argues that the first capitalists were Calvinists, though not all Calvinists became capitalists. These Calvinists believed in working hard, and not wasting any money on unnecessary material possessions was the way to gain eternal salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. The actions taken by the Calvinists who became capitalists cannot be separated from the definition they applied to their actions, otherwise meaning is lost. The idea is, that even a good thing done for the wrong reasons can be wrong. Consider the difference between an ascetic Calvinist, and Ebeneezer Scrooge; both have essentially the same idea, however one is more likely to reach eternal salvation.<br />
<br />
'''Key Figures:''' George Herbert Mead<br />
<br />
;Notable works include<br />
:''Mind, Self, and Society'' by George Herbert Mead<br />
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber<br />
<br />
===Feminist Theory===<br />
The science of sociology would not be complete without the [[Feminism|feminist]] perspective. While feminism continues today to be a point of contention, it nevertheless has an important contribution to the science. At the time when sociology was born, and throughout its early years, women were not regarded as full citizens in the same way as men. The best evidence to support that position, is the role women played in the home and their limited participation outside the home. Feminist theory focuses on "the system of male domination in society" (Brym, 2001:15). This theory maintains that the relative positions of men and women in society is a social construct, which can and should be changed for the benefit of all members of society. Feminist theory examines structures on both a macrolevel and microlevel setting. The theory holds that the inequalities are institutionalized, even in the field of sociology. The most notable figure is Harriet Martineau, regarded as the first woman sociologist.<br />
<br />
Example: Early theories on social inequality examined the paid work done by men, but ignored completely the unpaid work done by women in the home. To answer the question of why unpaid labour in the home would be of sociological consequence, one must consider the remuneration earned by professional house cleaning services. It is undeniable in light of this evidence, that a spouse's (or parent's) work in the home, is of economic consequence, regardless of the sex of the partner.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><br />
<br />
'''Key Figures:''' Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Perkins Gilman<br />
<br />
;Notable works include<br />
:''Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution.'' by Charlotte Perkins Gilman<br />
:''Illustrations of Political Economy'' by Harriet Martineau<br />
<br />
==Top Ten Most Influential Books==<br />
<br />
# Max Weber, Economy and Society<br />
# C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination<br />
# Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure<br />
# Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism<br />
# P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality<br />
# Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste<br />
# Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process<br />
# Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action<br />
# Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action<br />
# Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm Books of the Century]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
===Professional Organizations===<br />
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]<br />
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]<br />
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]<br />
<br />
===Resources===<br />
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]<br />
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]<br />
* [http://www.jstor.org/ Journal Storage]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<!-- <br />
NOTES:<br />
<br />
Please continue the use of APA style referencing for consistency throughout this document.<br />
<br />
Author. A.A. (Date).Title of book. Place of publication: Publisher<br />
<br />
Author, A.A. (Date). Title of essay/article/chapter. In E. Editor (Ed.), Title of book (pp. xx-xx). Place of publication: Publisher. <br />
<br />
Sources/Bias: This document has been compiled through the use of scholarly resources, i.e. published books and texts. It has been written with a neutral bias, including the use of gender neutrality. This is due to the nature of sociology as a science (and a liberal art). The intent is to report only facts, and cite examples from published sources, preferably peer reviewed resources. Please avoid personal opinions, and personal web pages (except personal web pages belonging to recognized authorities, located on university/college servers).<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Life Sciences]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autism&diff=901365Autism2011-08-15T23:36:38Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Autism''' is a type of pervasive developmental disorder. It is characterized by difficulties with social interaction; difficulties with verbal communication, especially pragmatic language; difficulty processing nonverbal communication such as facial expression; intense, narrow interests; difficulty adjusting to changes in routine; and repetitive behaviors. Other signs include lack of eye contact, delayed or unusual play skills, hypo- or hyper-sensitivity to sensory stimuli, and anxiety.<ref>http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/development-disorder?page=2</ref> It is usually detected by the time a child is four years old but in some cases, autism goes unnoticed into adulthood. There are many intelligent and talented autistic individuals.<ref>Temple Grandin, "Thinking in Pictures, Expanded Edition: My Life with Autism" amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307275655/ref=wl_it_dp/103-3432247-4184629?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1CWNFSEUCIXQL&colid=49VN3HJC5OQK</ref> The term '''autism''' was first used in 1912. <br />
<br />
Diagnoses of autism has increased from 1:10,000 in 1988 to as high as 1 in 150 people,<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm</ref> and it has been rising. Four times as many boys suffer from autism as girls.<ref name="Clinic Stats">http://www.iupui.edu/~psycdept/autism/autism.htm</ref> Among boys, 1 in 94 has the disorder. In New Jersey, which has the highest rate in the nation, 1 in every 60 boys has autism and 1 in every 94 children is affected. There is a seizure disorder in about one-third of those who have autism.<ref name="Clinic Stats"/><br />
<br />
Autism is said to exist on a "spectrum;" that is, there is a wide range of how this disorder affects people. Other pervasive developmental disorders on the "autism spectrum" include [[Asperger syndrome |Asperger's Syndrome]], Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS), Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Rett's Syndrome. There are many degrees of functioning in individuals with autism. Because of this, all individuals diagnosed with autism will not exhibit the same characteristics, or exhibit them to the same degree. <br />
<br />
Autism was first identified clinically in 1943 by Dr. [[Leo Kanner]]. Dr. Hans Asperger also did some research into autism at about the same time and discovered Asperger's syndrome. As early as the 1990's, many intervention strategies, including Applied Behavioral Analysis ([[ABA therapy]]), were used to treat autism or mitigate its symptoms.<br />
<br />
==How does autism develop?==<br />
<br />
Although no one knows how autism develops, experts have focused on physical causes such as environmental toxins, the vaccine preservative [[thimerosal]], and the diet of both the mother (pre-birth and during breastfeeding) and child.<br />
Some experts have speculated about [[genetic predisposition]]. <br />
<br />
Lisa Jo Rudy, mother of an autistic boy, wrote:<br />
:Today, it is generally agreed that autism is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors -- and unrelated to "cold mothering." [http://autism.about.com/od/causesofautism/p/refrigerator.htm]<br />
<br />
=== Physical Factors ===<br />
<br />
The Autism Society says, "Researchers are investigating problems during pregnancy or delivery as well as environmental factors, such as viral infections, metabolic imbalances, and exposure to environmental chemicals." [http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_whatcauses]<br />
<br />
* There are two popular theories linking autism and vaccines. One theory suggests the MMR (Mumps-Measles-Rubella) vaccine causes intestinal problems which lead to the development of autism. This theory was based on the research of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who conducted a study using 12 children to make the connection between autism and the MMR vaccine. However, a recent investigation of this study has concluded that Dr. Wakefield manipulated patient data to support his conclusion, and used questionable research practices when obtaining blood samples from the children in the study. <ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece</ref> The second theory suggests that thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines, could be a contributor of the development of autism. [http://www.autism-causes.com/autism-causes.html]<br />
<br />
There are claims that environmental toxins increase the risk of autism, just as they increase the risk of cancer. [[New Jersey]] has the highest rate of cancer in the nation, presumably due to a heavy concentration of environmental toxins, and it also has the highest rate of [[autism]]. Autistic patients are observed to have higher levels of metals and other toxins. <br />
<br />
A toxic [[mercury]] preservative used in [[vaccines]], thimerosal, is a suspected cause of injury in many recipients, including a cause of increase in autism rates.<ref>[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:952MmAWeCOsJ:www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf+jpands&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines,<br />
Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States]</ref> Thimerosal is a inorganic form of mercury that was widely used as a preservative. Only after intense public pressure did the FDA and CDC act, in 1999 and 2000, to reduce thimerosal usage in vaccines. But thimerosal continues to be used far more than realized, as in the annual flu vaccine and stockpiles of vaccines left over from years ago. Since thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, U.S. rates of autism have increased rather than declined, suggesting that thimerosal was not a contributor to autism.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html#6</ref><ref>http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/autismincreases.php</ref> <br />
<br />
The is enormous pressure to deny that vaccinations are causing autism, as such a revelation would result in political, legal, and financial consequences for those who have been supporting increases in vaccination. As researchers denied smoking caused lung cancer for decades, researchers now claim that vaccination is not causing autism.<ref>http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13703.html,</ref><ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75KN-4DJ97VJ-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c555dd340aa6cb7c3a18806ba0fd162a</ref><ref>http://www.iom.edu/?id=27771</ref> Many parents who see first-hand the changes in their children immediately shortly after vaccination see a clear cause-and-effect, and some are opting out of vaccination.<ref>http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.425/pub_detail.asp</ref><br />
<br />
Thimerosal is not the only ingredient of vaccines that may be causing the increase in autism. By assaulting the immune system at a very young age, multiple vaccinations may be doing other harm that is not yet fully understood. Autism is a neurological condition, and side effects of vaccination are known to cause other neurological problems.<br />
<br />
"Rigorous scientific studies have not identified links between autism and either thimerosal-containing vaccine or the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine" <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed</ref><br />
<br />
=== Genetics ===<br />
<br />
Some experts suspect that there is a genetic susceptibility to autism.<ref>http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/09/studies-new-clues-to-the-genetic-roots-of-autism/</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/11/autism-adhd-share-genetic-similarities/</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-autism-20110815,0,3154651.story</ref><ref>Happé F, Ronald A. The 'fractionable autism triad': a review of evidence from behavioural, genetic, cognitive and neural research. Neuropsychol Rev. 2008;18(4):287–304</ref><ref>Freitag CM. The genetics of autistic disorders and its clinical relevance: a review of the literature. Mol Psychiatry. 2007;12(1):2–22. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001896. PMID 17033636</ref> The genetics of this condition are not fully understood; perhaps caused by complex interactions between multiple genes which would account for the "spectrum" like differences in the severity of many cases <ref> http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7kMNqvTgRtoJ:www.ikhebeenvraag.be/mediastorage/FSDocument/52/Freitag-2.pdf+</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764594</ref><br />
<br />
Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at the [[University of Cambridge]] (U.K.) says that males and females are hardwired for different behavior, with boys tending to be stronger at mechanics, categorizing and systemizing information, mathematics, etc. and girls stronger at emotionalizing and empathizing. He has proposed that autism is merely an extreme version of the [[male brain type]], in which the (female) urge to empathize is nearly absent and the brain is almost entirely hardwired for the (male) tasks of systemizing.<ref>Baron-Cohen, Simon. ''The Essential Difference'', Basic Books 2003.</ref><br />
<br />
Leo Kanner in a 1949 paper identified "parental coldness" and a "lack of maternal warmth" in the parents of autistic children, leading to the term ''refrigerator mother''. The theory here is autism is caused by incomplete [[socialization]] during early childhood because of emotionally cold parents. The book ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Peter Briggin notes that the frigid mother theory of autism was abandoned in recent years due to pressure groups.<ref>Briggin, Peter R. ''Toxic Psychiatry'', New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991.</ref><br />
<br />
Lenny Schafer, editor of the ''Schafer Autism Report'', rejects outright the current characterization of mild social retardation (such as "[[Asperger syndrome|Asperger's syndrome]]") as forms of autism. He notes that autism is a disability, and if a person is not disabled from participation in society by their condition, in such areas as being able to hold a job or communicate, including communication over the Internet, they are not autistic and should not be diagnosed as such. He accordingly rejects that there can be such a thing as autistic self-advocacy, as anyone who is truly autistic would not have that ability.<ref>http://www.sarnet.org/</ref><br />
<br />
''Wired'' magazine has referred to autism as a "geek syndrome", or essentially as a form of identity-politics-for-computer-nerds.<ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html</ref>. Those favoring this interpretation of autism have coined new terminology, including "neurodiversity" for a population with and without autistic individuals , and using the term "neurotypical" for those without autism.<br />
<br />
==Repetitive behavior==<br />
<br />
They include walking on tiptoes, flapping of hands, staring at objects for a prolonged period of time, oral fixation, spinning in circles, and other repetitive activities. <br />
These are called stims or stimming. <br />
<br />
==Interventions and Treatments==<br />
<br />
*Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) - This is a behavioral intervention which applies the study of behavioral analysis, as well as the tools of this study, toward assisting behaviors of social significance in individuals of many different populations, including children with autism. <ref>http://www.centerforautism.com/getting_started/aba.asp</ref> Applied behavior analysis is used to increase positive behaviors, decrease interfering behaviors, maintain positive behaviors, teach new skills, and generalize new positive behaviors across many different settings, not just in a restrictive classroom or therapy setting. Therapists begin by observing the behaviors of the individual, focusing on skills and behaviors to reinforce or teach, and identifying interfering behaviors to be minimized. They then develop an intervention plan to reinforce the positive behaviors and skills, by using a system of rewards when the individual receiving the therapy exhibits the behavior that the therapist wants to observe. As the individual incorporates more positive behaviors, the therapist may decrease or change the reinforcement as necessary. <br />
<br />
*Developmental, Individual difference and Relationship-based (DIR/Floortime) model - This is a relationship-based intervention, developed by Dr. Stanley Greenspan, which focuses on developing a connection with the individual with autism, emphasizing the role his or her interests, emotions, and preferences play in developing an effective treatment. <ref>http://www.icdl.com/dirFloortime/overview/index.shtml</ref> This model emphasizes individual differences in children with autism, and requires caregivers and therapists to approach each child accordingly. It begins with understanding the child's developmental stage, understanding the ways in which the child understands and learns information and processes sensory stimuli, and developing relationships between the child and his or her caregivers and therapists, who tailor their affect and interactions to the child's needs. This model especially emphasizes the importance of parents and caregivers in the process of their child's treatment, because of their unique relationship to the child. <br />
<br />
*Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication-handicapped CHildren (TEACCH) - This approach was developed in the early 1970s by Eric Schopler and colleagues, and focuses on skil development, as well as fulfillment of human needs such as communication, social interaction, increasing feelings of safety and reducing anxiety, and engaging in productive and enjoyable activities.<ref>http://www.teacch.com/whatis.html</ref> The principles of the TEACCH method of intervention include: understanding the "culture" of autism (what characterizes individuals with autism, such as their thinking patterns and behaviors), developing an individualized approach to intervention for each individual, structuring the physical environment for effective learning, and using visual supports to assist in understanding and retaining routines, structures, and schedules, as well as to make individual tasks understandable.<br />
<br />
==Homeschooling==<br />
<br />
As with many other children with special needs, homeschooling autistic children can provide a special environment which allows them to florish. <br />
<br />
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/weblinks/autism.htm<br />
<br />
A large body of assistance is available for parents who wish to homeschool their autistic children, including [[homeschooling|here]] on Conservapedia.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Evidence of Harm]]<br />
*[[Asperger syndrome]]<br />
*[[Symptoms of autism]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
#http://www.autismspeaks.org/ <br />
#http://www.autismdigest.com/<br />
#http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/<br />
#http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer<br />
#http://www.autismlink.com/<br />
#[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/are-autism-and-vaccines-linked Opposing Views: Are Autism and Vaccines Linked?]<br />
#[http://www.neurodiversity.com/main.html Neurodiversity - An Incredible Resource for Autism Related Information]<br />
#http://homeschoolaustralia.com/index/specialneeds.html Homeschooling Australia's Autism Page<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[category:psychology]]<br />
[[category: medicine]]<br />
[[category:autism]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Autism&diff=900738Talk:Autism2011-08-14T16:42:48Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>I once visited, on a business trip, a school for autistic children in England, with the local MP. You would not believe the love that MP, the teachers, and everyone we were with, had for these children. That is Christ's love truly functioning in our world.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 21:33, 18 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
May I ask which school this was?<br />
[[User:Flardox|Flardox]]<br />
_________________________<br />
I'm a mother of a mild to moderate autistic boy. I have put this on my yahoo asd list, so that they can come and edit as well. I'm hoping that those more knowledgable then I come by. I added in external links to while granted liberal sources, are also known for their knowledge in autism. moonwolf23(not sure how to put my hyperlink to my username in here)<br />
<br />
== Expert needed? ==<br />
<br />
I think this page is in serious need of an expert on the subject. I have been correcting spelling, bias, and grammar in this article since I saw it. <br />
<br />
I have no experience in the subject, so there's no way of checking the content for accuracy as well. <br />
<br />
Maestro pointed out that there's a difference between autism and idiot savants, which I was unaware of.<br />
<br />
Also, I think we need a balanced view regarding the vaccine issue; not everyone believes that vaccines cause autism. Wasn't one of the scientists behind the research recently criticized for something in the news? I'm rather skeptical, since cavity fillings contain mercury as well (as far as I know).<br />
<br />
Are there any Conservapedian psychiatrists here? :) -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 18:33, 8 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Hi RedBlade7, I am not a phsychiatrist, but I know that Autism is NOT a disorder, and neither is Asperger syndrom. People who have Autism and Asperger syndrom both have diferent ways of thinking, and often have strengths that other people don't have. only when someone has low functioning Autism (instead of High functioning Autism or Asperger syndrom) would he/she have a disorder. [[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
Dear Martial Artist,<br />
I have Autism, and I believe that classifying autism as a mental disorder is necessary for treatment. Some people in the autistic community is categorizing autistic people as a minority group instead of having a mental disorder. If people begin to remove autism from psychology books, which I'm hoping that will never happen, many people who have a severe form of autism will have trouble receiving the treatment that is crucial for their adaptation in society. I hope you can understand this. Neither should high functioning autism nor low functioning autism be removed from the DSM. Just a quick thought of mine. Peace. [[User:Nashhinton|Nashhinton]] 12:42, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
This is my first edit on Conservapedia (I just joined), so I'm not sure if this is the way you'd like edits done. Anyhow, here is my reply to the above question:<br />
<br />
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I am: a psychologist; a Conservapedian; a mother (retired from homeschooling) with one child on the autism spectrum (now grown up) and my other child is neurotypical (also going to homeschool); a grandmother with Asperger's syndrome; and an advocate for people on the autism spectrum.<br />
<br />
I've also lived most of my life with my mouth filled with amalgam fillings (all the teeth left in my mouth, that weren't pulled out, had cavities develop all through my childhood), so I can offer the before and after effects of removing all the mercury out of my mouth.<br />
<br />
For those who might not know, Asperger's syndrome is allegedly a form of autism refered to as "high-functioning autism." Because there is much more to learn yet about autism and Aspergers, this debate most likely will continue for some time. --[[User:Faithfilly|Faithfilly]] 06:39, 30 May 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hi Faithfully, Asperger's syndrom and High Fuctioning Autism are two seperate syndroms. There are differences, although they are similar. A kid with asperger's syndrom has no speech delays, and has a average to above average intellegence level. [[User:MartialArtist|MartialArtist]] 20:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
_________<br />
<br />
- It's called savant syndrome, and it's not a "type" of autism. Also, the vaccine/autism hypothesis has zero credible support among bona fide scientists. A diagnoses of autism is based on behaviors that were present by the age of three. Asperger's is technically "autism spectrum disorder".<br />
<br />
- The increase in autism prevalence is most certainly due to changes in the diagnostic criteria, increased public awareness, increased social services, and better diagnoses by physicians.<br />
<br />
- In addition, autistic-like behaviors can be present in a number of neurological conditions without an actual autism diagnosis. A closed head injury, for example, can mimic autism, as can a brain inflammation.<br />
<br />
== Material moved for purpose of discussion ==<br />
<br />
I am moving this here for discussion:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Warning: Autism Speaks is a multi-million dollar scam created to take advantage of autism for the purpose of making money. It is the largest organization for autism and is highly controlled. Autism Speaks many lies and does not allow adults on the autism spectrum to speak at their conventions. The only adults on the autism spectrum who they permit visibility are those who will not challenge their agenda (profits). Likewise, Generation Rescue is a non-evidence based fringe organization that promotes the debunked hypothesis that autism is caused by vaccines.<br />
<br />
The ABA therapy of "retraining the brain" is merely a fancy way of saying "brainwashing." Autism is not a disease that gets "cured" by "treatments." Because this is so highly complex and time-consuming to grasp an understanding of, most people eagerly go for what looks good. Admittedly it does appear on the surface to seem very good, but the long-term consequences provide a lot of risk. The "therapy" society needs, in regards to autism, is education to eliminate the ignorance and misleading information about autism; plus, to eliminate the bigotry and intolerance of those who are neuro-A-typical. <br />
<br />
Here are a couple of better links:<br />
<br />
#http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/<br />
#http://ani.autistics.org/<br />
<br />
[http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer Autism Society of America] Clubs is another huge organization to beware of. The best advice for doing research to get information is to go straight to the source and skip the organizations (at least until you've become properly educated). Either go to autism blog lists like those found at [http://autism-hub.com/ Autism-hub] and [http://www.blognetnews.com/autism/ Blognetnews.com/autism] or search online to read about what bloggers on the autism spectrum have to say. A lot of mothers of ASD children blog and have become quite knowledgeable also. <br />
<br />
Also, be discerning when reading books published on this subject ---> especially ones written for parents of ASD (Autism Spectrum Different) children by 'professionals' (who are neurotypical and do not have any children on the autism spectrum). <br />
<br />
One of the best books to own is by Tony Attwood called, "The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome." A couple of other good ones are: "Theory of Mind and the Triad of Perspectives on Autism and Asperger Syndrome" by Olga Bogdashina and "Asperger Syndrome: Natural Steps toward a Better Life" by Suzanne C. Lawton.<br />
<br />
----------<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
First off, blatantly calling some organization or another a "scam" without proof is just asking for trouble. I suspect the person who added it (who has not added anything else anywhere) is not who they claimed they are. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It does sound a bit foamy, someone seems to have some personal issues with these groups. But it's right about Generation Rescue, they do still claim that autism was caused by shots despite all the evidence to the contrary. They are a pretty dangerous group in that they cause parents to worry about their children, and maybe even to stop vaccinating them so I can see how someone would be a little angry against them, but I'm sure there is a better way to write that for an encyclopedia article so it doesn't sound just like ranting. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 22:28, 23 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Changed some things ==<br />
<br />
I know this page hasn't been edited in some time, but I just wanted to add some information about different therapies, and correct a few errors such as with the variants of autism spectrum disorders. Hope this is helpful. [[User:Sthomas|Sthomas]] 21:37, 26 May 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some things need to be updated. In particular, I think it might be wise to remove sections that seem to support the theory that the disease is caused by vaccines. The doctor who came up with the study has had his medical license revoked for a while now and the British Medical Journal has just published an article that called his work outright fraud. Seems like junk science to me and it should be removed, but I am very new at this and do not want to step on anyones toes. Should also make a tie in between junk science and trial lawyers.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 21:00, 9 January 2011 (EST)</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evidence_of_Harm&diff=900578Evidence of Harm2011-08-14T02:19:50Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Evidence of Harm''''' is a [[book]] by [[David Kirby]] that chronicles the danger of [[mercury]] preservatives in common [[vaccine|vaccines]], and suggests that early childhood vaccination may be a contributing factor to [[autism]]. This thesis has since been disproved in multiple studies{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}. Kirby has gained fame for giving voice to the concerns of thousands of worried parents and standing up to [[Big Science]].<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[http://www.evidenceofharm.com ''Evidence of Harm'',] David Kirby's website.<br />
[[category:Science]]<br />
[[category:Journalism]]</div>Nashhintonhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Symptoms_of_autism&diff=900576Symptoms of autism2011-08-14T02:08:10Z<p>Nashhinton: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Symptoms of autism''' can include:<br />
<br />
*difficulty in interacting; avoiding eye contact; preferring to be alone; unresponsiveness to noises<br />
*repeats activities, words or phrases; cling to sameness or objects; repetition of what is heard<br />
*inappropriate laughing or giggling; difficulty expressing needs<br />
*ostensible insensitivity to pain and lack of appreciation of danger<br />
*fascination with spinning around<br />
*compulsive behavior<br />
*discomfort and agitation due to changes in routine; maladaptive behavior.<br />
*trouble displaying empathy.<br />
*narrow interests; constant preoccupation with one object or interest.<br />
*peculiarities in speech; speech can be delayed, tangential, or lacking proper syntax. May speak like a "little professor".<br />
*Problems with nonverbal communication.<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[autism]]<br />
[[Category:autism]]</div>Nashhinton