Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal

2007-10-24T04:38:24Z

Alloco1: Re: taxpayer-supported government schools.

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
==Redirect==

Just out of curiosity, is there a difference between "liberal" and "liberalism"? (Don't play semantics, you know what I mean). And is it acceptable to simply have "liberalism" redirect here? I ask because Wikipedia was recently criticized for the inverse redirect, and I wondered if there was any sort of specific policy on that at Conservapedia... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:47, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that's a little oversimplified - I happen to have a very old and good friend, a rancher who lives in Montana. He's a Republican, gun carrying, NRA member, pro-life, chruch-going, and a real American Man's Man. Yet he's a keen supporter of Greenpeace and the NRDC, because he's also a huge lover of nature - he's very keen on the reintroduction of the wolf, he advocates banning off-road vehicle use in most rural areas and has similar views on skidoos, he drives a Prius because he doesn't want to pollute the atmosphere or contribute to global warming, he generates his own windpower. I think people see the world in much broader shades of gray than the two boxes of Liberal and Conservative you seem so keen to put them in. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 18:58, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:That's a non sequiter. You're assuming Greenpeace is an organization concerned about the environment. We usually ban disinformation activists/specialists. Right now you are in violation of 90/10 rule -- 2/3 of your edits are meaningless talk such as above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:47, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Why is it a non sequitor? The comment above mine says Greenpeace is a liberal organization, and I'm simply saying my Republican, God-fearing rancher friend wouldn't call himself a liberal if you paid him! He's a very 'typical Conservapedia' person in many ways, but he loves the environment, that's all - I'm simply saying there's people like you, who wouldn't agree with you about Greenpeace. And regarding my edits, I'm a new user around here, and I have contributed one edit to Jean-Marie Le Pen, which was reverted, causing two comments, and this comment here. So that's 75/25, surely?

Finally, I'm not even a member of any environmental organizations myself! [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

There should be something in this article about the root of the word "liberal", which comes originally form the Latin adjective "liber", the meaning of which is "free", and was also the root for anothe Latin adjective "liberalis", which means "generous".

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. [[User:Order]] 24 July

::We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. [[User:Order]] 24 July, 11:50
::How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for [[al-Qaeda]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::: If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:00
::::Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:45
::::I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15

::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

::::This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

::::So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

:::But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. [[User:Order]] 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)
<--
OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:
*A $500 per child tax increase.
* A 55% death tax.
* A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
* A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
* A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/CA_072307_walbergtaxhikes.pdf] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

:What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

:: '' Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term '' "conservative." ''The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, ''liberal'' Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for'' "liberal."

:This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

:How some something like:
:: ''Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.''

Feel free to start with your own definition. [[User:Order]] 25 July 11:50

:::If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

:::I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== taxpayer funded abortion ==

I think the statement that liberals support "taxpayer funded abortion" is misleading in that it suggests that liberals specifically focus on funding for abortion, whereas this is just part of the way they think of it. This could be improved by splitting it into two parts:
#Abortion as legitimate medical procedure
#State funding of medical procedures (even controversial ones such as abortion).
[[User:Tester|Tester]] 18:48, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
:You're not serious, are you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, [[Deceit|Liberals]] also focus on several types of abortion and racial genocide as well. I agree, those issues are only a small portion of their "thinking". --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:Lol.gif‎ ]]

*Rob, feel free to "borrow" my LOL for all such posts. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
:Great! Will do.
:"Taxpayer funded abortion" works fine. It's called "log rolling." There are Social Conservatives and there are Economic Conservaitves, and "taxpayer funded abortion" unites the two in common cuase. Liberals have "eco-racism" (I kid you not. See here [http://web.archive.org/web/20000819003459/http://www.alternatives.com/libs/poledge.htm] "Eco-Racism cberlet pra.reports") "Eco-racism" is where white racist suburbanites drive gas guzzlers through the inner-city on their way to work, however their ''real'' intention, according the highly regarded leftist think tank, Political Research Associates, is to [[exterminate]] minority popultations with carbon monoxide fumes blown out of thier tail pipes. This stroke of genius, of melding two separate constituancies, Blacks and Environmentalists, into common cause to combat the evil white Republicans, is an example of liberal "log rolling."

:So, while libs have "eco-racism," we have "taxpayer funded abortion." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*I didn't even want to mention Planned Parenthood...cause the truth upsets the Liberals sooooo much! ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

: How many Liberals believe in this "Eco-racism" trash, honestly? And will Conservapedia have an article about that? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::Eco-racism just didn't get the response intended, and now its auther has tried to hide copies of it, and expunge any reference to it from his website. But it does make for a starting point here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chip_Berlet] in Conservapedia about one of Wikipedia's most treasured "expert" contributors (SlimVirgin refers to him as "highly regarded," and Fred Bauder calls him "a valuable editor"). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah. Seems like a fringe nutjob to me... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::::A fringe nutjob who wrote for the [[Yippies]] ''Overthrow'' publication, and the [[Guardian]] newspaper, which was founded by a few [[KGB]] operatives and hired a reporter who actually took part in torturing American [[POW]]s during the Korean War. Yes, this fringe nutjob not only has a record of writing for marginal, fringe & extremist publications, is the inventor of bizarre conspiracy theories, this same fringe nutjob is in fact Wikipedia's Gatekeeper of political content--the person assigned by Jimbo & the Foundation to judge acceptable politcal content and sourcing for the information your children get all the Google hits on. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Source? I like sources. Can I get a source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:38, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::*"Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)" [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]
:::::*“Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left,” The [[Guardian]] (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3." cited from Berlet's own webstie [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]; Conservapedia's article on the [[Guardian#post-60s_radicalism]] gives you everything you need to know about ''Guardian'', cited from a mainstream publisher (Prometheus Books), [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], pg. 125.
:::::*"Chip is an investigative journalist used by other journalists for their research, '''and is highly regarded''' as such. I've also seen him around Wikipedia making a real effort (in a few cases, more of an effort that I would have made) to be fair to people he disagrees with politically. '''He's definitely a credible source for WP''' and has been used as such in several articles. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 02:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20232935&oldid=20232665]
:::::*"a valuable Wikipedia editor" Fred Bauder Sun Dec 4 15:37:38 UTC 2005 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033813.html]

<--

We need an article [[taxpayer funded abortion]]. Anybody care to give it a start? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Another definition of liberal ==

In international politics liberalism has a slightly different meaning than in American politics. May I request that this be added somewhere please? Liberal is referenced on the [[realism]] page, so we need to alleviate the confusion :)

:In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The [[United Nations]] is an example of a liberal political organization.

:The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].

Thanks!! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:59, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:"an actor whose methods...etc" "complex interdependence between states" (really? who wudda thunk it...) "no hieracrhy of importance" IOW, peace isn't anymore of a priority than war, or famine relief is no more important than extermination and slavery.

:Sheeesh, why do we get all these types? Can you give an example of this type of "actor"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:12, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well, an actor in international politics is rarely actually an individual, it is any organization which makes or is involved with the foreign policy. But I'm not just making this stuff up, I basically copied the definition straight from my IP class notes. Some examples of liberal actors would be the UN, as well as many countries in Europe. The European Union is a textbook definition of a liberal organization. The US is basically a textbook definition of a realist, the opposite of a liberal. We (meaning the country's leadership with indirect influence from the citizens) generally believe that power and unilateralism are better (more effective) than institutions and international law. The USSR would be another great example of a realist state.

::I realize it might seem to muddy up the definition of "liberal", but this isn't a new definition for a different ''type'' of liberal. It's applying the same definition (more or less) to a different ''level'' of politics. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:45, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sounds like more double speak to muddy the waters. Liberals, world-wide, tend toward socialism/socialistic thinking and policies. That the State should regulate and control more. That much is universal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:50, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::Eeeeeeh ''kind of''. Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics. For example, no country has as part of it's foreign policy a "support of affirmative action" because it doesn't make sense in world-level politics. The IP definition of liberal also has ''nothing'' to do with socialism, that's again a lower level of politics. You could maybe argue that they want more government control... but that's not exactly right either. I wish they had invented a new term, because the two "liberals" are distinct from each other.

::Just pretend that the IP liberal is actually some new word, like "miberal". If you go up to my definition and replace "liberal" with "miberal" it gets the message across better. "Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess! I hope this makes sense. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:05, 22 August 2007 (EDT) ''PS: Just be glad I'm leaving the definition general. We could get into neoliberalism and transnationalism and REALLY get things interesting! :)''

:::Considering it was [[Alger Hiss]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and [[Josef Stalin]] who created the [[United Nations]], [[liberal]] may be the correct word to ascribe to it. However then, we must therefore incorporate its history into the United Nations, and an understanding of what the word liberal means. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:37, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Unfortunately I don't have any information about the etymology of the word liberal. I don't know if it is related to the creation of the United Nations. I will see if there's a discussion in my IP books anywhere. Either way, they are still two different meanings, even if one meaning branched from the other in the past. Go through the article and you will find that much of it simply does not apply to world-level interactions. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Per Andy: Liberal = [[Deceit]]. That's good enough for me! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's fine [[rhetoric]], but it's not accurate. It probably doesn't bother anybody on this website but me (there aren't a whole lot of political theory nuts in the world), but getting nuances like this correct are important if you want to be an accurate encyclopedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::You seem to be describing a paid bureaucrat, however the "methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" is a little bit suspicious. And what term would describe an actor who rejects "no hierarchy of importance among international issues"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bureaucrats though, tend to be very "conservative" i.e. "resistant to change" as a group in whatever political machine they find themselves in. A "conservative bureaucrat" in a Marxist regime would resist efforts to bring his country's policies in-line with an open and free market system. Conversely, a "liberal bureaucrat" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), in the same regime would be pushing for something closer to what US conservatives would like. Maybe it's time to chuck this "definition" for something workable. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 19:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Luckily, Rob, I brought my text books with me to sell off... and luckily they haven't sold yet :) Here are some quotes which should clear things up, and prove I'm not just inventing this stuff! (from ''World Politics: the Menu for Choice'' by Russett, Starr, and Kinsella):

::::'''Power vs. international law and institutions'''
::::*"liberalism was and continues to be a reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics"
::::*"[Liberals] emphasized the benefits of collective security and the rule of international law, which prevented countries' actions."

::::'''Glossary definition'''
::::*"Liberalism - A perspective that emphasizes the importance of institutions and linkages between states for facilitating cooperation, coordination, and nonviolent modes of conflict resolution"

:::An actor who rejects a lack of a hierarchy (in other words, an actor who believes there ''is'' a higherarchy) would be a realist: realists place security above all other matters. I'm not sure what you mean by the beaurocrat comment, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:33, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, yes, this is classical liberalism; "benefits of collective security and the rule of international law" is moreless the same as a Wilsonian Democracy. This picture is however, incomplete. Because it is not a straight line from Wilson Democracy through the New Deal & post WWII institutions such as the UN or IMF. State planning intervened, and the modern idea of "liberalism" was corrupted. I haven't read enough of this stuff (your cite) to know if it makes that fact clear, or is just another fig leaf. This author evidently is David Kinsella, not to be confused with Stephan Kinsella, whose ideas I think are radically different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:21, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::I was talking with my friend who has had much more study on the subject, and she suggested I use the term [[idealist]] instead of liberal. This is an older term that means the same thing, but it's not as confusing or muddying as liberal. You are right, liberalism and idealism are similar, and they have similar roots, but they aren't the same thing. Both overlap, but they have different scopes and applications. Should I take this over to [[idealist]] then? (And yes, it is David; I don't know anything much about Stephan). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:38, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Actually, I'm not certain that would fit, here's why: "reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics" and "focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" can be very [[pragmatic]], as opposed to partisan [[ideologue]]s (conservatives tend to speak in these terms, pragmatists vs ideologues). An actor (individual or entity) who ignores partisan "power politics", and driven by pragmatism and reality, probably is not so much of an idealist. "Idealist's" are generally regarded as dreamers; yet none the less, elected and appointed offices are full of these types, and they never cease trying to convert others to thier idealism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:See, though, this is just another problem with English, not a problem with the definition. Just as there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal), there are two types of idealists (the "opposite of a realist" idealist and the "opposite of a pragmatist" idealist). (There are also two types of realists!) My book takes 2 pages to give a basic definition of liberal (including the transition from idealists to liberals) and then another 400 pages distinguishing liberal from realist. (There's also another term, "radical", which generally describes the socialist view of world politics). Repeating this entire discussion is not practical in a concise encyclopedia, so I boiled down a whole semester's study (and then some) into the definition I gave at the top of this section (aaaaaaaaaall the way up there!). That definition needs to go *somewhere*, because right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist. Please advise me on where I should put this information. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:06, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::Let me offer an unfair, stereotyped conjecture about Russett, Starr, and Kinsella, which I have not read and is only based upon my own personal experiences and biases: these gentlemen appear to attempting to rehabilitate 'liberalism' (to a youthful audience) using band aids, duct tape, rubber bands, and paper clips. They are attempting to put a good face upon it, and deny & sweep under the rug much of the historical record since the aftermath of the First World War. They are attempting to paint a picture that draws a straight line through the idealism of Woodrow Wilson (and that entire generation at the time of Wilson which was highly ideological, that went to war to "make the world safe for democracy"), that then in theory this idealism supported radical social & economic change during the New Deal, as well as ''more'' foreign interventionism (which the record shows, again failed). And the two points that connect the dots in this theory of a continuity of "liberal ideals" is the failed League of Nations, and the (in theory) more successful United Nations.
::All this [[disinformation]] is intended to indoctrinate young people who's political & ideological views are unmolded and unsolidified yet. So of course we have throw in the mix somewhere the notion of good guys & bad guys. Liberals of course, are always the good guys, forward thinking, kind, considerate, defenders of the oppressed, etc., and anyone who opposes them is of course, a conservative or Nazi by any other term. Never mind how we arrive at these conclusions, it is just getting there is all that matters. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Um... no, that's not really the case at all. And it's a little foil-hatted, to boot. HSK are not the only sources we used in that class, either. We also drew from ''International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues'' by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis (which is actually a compiliation, so there are at least 20 or so more authors associated with it), as well as ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Relations Since 1945'' by Geir Lundstad. My national security policy book also used the same definition, but I don't remember who wrote that off the top of my head (the book is at home). We also touched on it very minorly in my political theory class, which was taught by a visitng professor. My friend who is a 8th semester poli sci major at a completely different school from me read this conversation last night and agreed that I was using the right definition, and that this is the "official" international relations use of the term.

:::You keep substituting your opinion about liberalism for a critique of the definition of liberalism. Even if you don't agree with liberals (in either sense of the word) ''liberals still exist.'' Unlike the monster under your bed, what is in your mind has no impact on what is in the real world. You also keep using your modern frame of view to interpret the past. You complain that they aren't defining Wilson's ideology correctly, because they weren't defining Wilson's ideology. Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions. R, S, and K did not draw a false line from Wilson on; they gave a breif (2 paragraph) overview of ideological history from WWI through the creation of the UN to set the ground work. That's on pages 27-8. Then on pages 28-519 they describe modern ideology.

:::If you had taken my class you would have surely seen that there was no vast left-wing conspiracy to lie to us about the true nature of liberals -- half the class was about realists as well! We were taught the definition and we were taught how to apply the definition, but there were no value judgments made. If anything, the class had a "conservative" bias, because we basically brushed off the "radical" view entirely! There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all.

:::Is there anybody else who has studied IP back me up here? I would hate for (admittedly uninformed and biased) opinion to trump thousands of dollars worth of education. I might have to ask for a refund! ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::::That's all very good, and does answer much. Those paragraphs would be interesting to read (as everything you cite would be). But how do we reconcile somebody focused on the business of administration, i.e. "institutions and international laws," vs mindless partisan "power politics," and call them ideological dreamers instead of realists? This definition says persons focused on mindless partisan power politics are realists, and bureacratic administrators are dreamers and idealists. In either case, no generalizations would be true, because dreamers & realists exist both as bureacratic administrators ''and'' and persons "focused" on "power politics."

:::::One further note, using the term "actor," to refer to an insitution rather than individuals doesn't tell us much; we are are still dealing with persons, and not some mindless machine or animal. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Oh, I guess part of the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics". (Naturally, [[political power]] is a redlink :/) "Power" in this case would, like most of these terms, be best served by many paragraphs, but it can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack.

All of these terms have false implications in them due to the fact that they also mean something else. So idealist doesn't necessarily mean a dreamer, and a realist doesn't necessarily mean a pragmatic, at least not in the most conventional usage of these words.

The term "actor" isn't used to imply that these are mechanical organizations; it's used to group together all the people who have influence on decisions. You and I are individuals having a discussion, but if "The United States" and "Canada" have a discussion, even though there are more than one person involved, they are discussing the interest of only 2 actors -- each country. Also note that it's never President Bush making a foreign policy decision. He's affected directly by his advisors and his staff, and he's affected indirectly by the media and public opinion. So in a sense, it is a country acting, not a man. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:I get it. Change the meaning of terms after you get committed to debate. Move the goal posts. Yes, that is liberalism.

:So, you're still arguing only dreamers go after political power, and practical people do not. Yes, this does indeed appear to be the type of liberalism taught in college text books.

:Here are two problems: (a) why do we have to redefine "liberal" since all the other terms we've discussed seem to serve just fine for the purpose and ideas they are intended to convey, and (b) what does this new definition of "liberal" stand in contrast to?

:Let's get specific: the root term, "liber", from Latin means "to free." In 1900, liberalism was very popular, because it was respected as the thought & ideology that "liberated," or freed human beings from oppressive feudal regimes which lacked the Rights of Man. Than after WWI, on a vast international scale, the idea of "freeing" human beings from theism took root. By the 1930s in the United States, people didn't only need to be freed from religious beliefs, they needed to be freed from poverty & ignorance ("ignorance" in this sense, is another codeword for religious beliefs). Being freed from poverty means people have to be made wards of the state, and give up thier rights that liberalism had won for them. Being made a ward of the state means accepting Social Security and free Healthcare, but the cost is in human freedom.

:So liberalism today seeks to liberate human beings from theism, and looks to the day a non-Christian messiah will come, heal the sick, raise the dead, give free healthcare, destroy international borders, raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour--including those who make $2 a day in Indonesian sweatshops, so without borders, and an equal distribution of poverty, we then will have true godless fraternity (to use a sexist term), liberty, and equality.

:This is to raise from the ash heap of history that great leftist utopia that collapsed in 1992. "Liberal reformer" like Gorbachav tried to save it, but "conservative Communists" opposed him in a coup and took him hostage. Both failed. So who is Yeltsin?, since Gorby holds the title as the forward looking liberal reformer? Yeltsin was just another Stresemann, Kerensky or Al-Maliki, just an interim caretaker til the true liberal messiah arrives bringing us all our free lunch and making us all slaves again. Yes, this is progressivism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such. You misunderstood the definition and I clarified it, but nothing is different than it was when I started.

::I have said nothing about dreamers (and neither have my text books). I have specifically ''denied'' that idealists are dreamers -- twice, I believe. And even if "idealist" ''did'' mean "dreamer" you've got it backwards! Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate doesn't mean the same think as what you seem to think it does).

::I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''. "taxpayer-funded abortion", "same-sex marriage", "affirmative action", "political correctness", "the Fairness Doctrine", "censorship of prayer in classrooms" (need I go on?) are all NATIONAL issues. They make NO SENSE on the international level. (b) the opposite of a liberal is a realist!! Still!

::What the heck is with your anti liberal historical rant?! It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and as I said before, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS.

::I am continually told that Conservapedia is a meritocracy. What qualifications do you have, may I ask? If Conservapdia wants to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" we really need to get past all the rhetoric, and rely on people who have studied the subjects. Otherwise we seriously need a name change. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::*(a) So, "the opposite of a liberal is a realist"
:::*(b) "Realists are the ones who 'go after political power'"
:::*(c) "liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
:::*(d) Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power"
:::*(e) "I never once changed the definition"
:::*(f) "the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics".... "Power" in this case would... can be simplified to "the use or display of force"
:::*(g) "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics....make NO SENSE on the international level."
:::*(h) "In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
:::*(i) "Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS. "
:::Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning. You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical. You claim only "realists" are focued on political power. You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense." You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."' You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning.
:::In this lengthy discussion, we have had absolutely no disagreement on any of the terms both of us have used, save one. I point to it historic meaning, which is known, accepted, and has a record. You propose to redefine the term because it, "make NO SENSE on the international level." You go on to say, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Earlier you will recall, I noted, "somewhere we have throw the notion of good guys & bad guys in the mix." Evidently we have reached that point, where terms have changed their meaning so we have to throw good guys & bad guys in the mix, and the wrong good guys are being called bad guys.
:::So to set set the world right-side up again, we need to redefine terms. And of course it is only one term we need to redefine, liberal.
:::Can we agree, this pretty much summarizes what we have discussed? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Pw sign 44.gif|right]]
::::Unfortunately there's no easy way to do this so I will have to make a list as well. My responses are in italics.
::::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''
::::*"You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical." ''I do not. I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power''' (meaning generally coercive force).''
::::*"You claim only "realists" are focued on political power." ''Correct.''
::::*"You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense."" ''No, I never mentioned trade issues. I said '''most''' of the qualities on the list make no sense (and I listed several), not '''all''' of the issues. You are putting words in my mouth.''
::::*"You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."'" ''Correct.''
::::*"You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning." ''I "assign a motive" when you go on a two-paragraph rant on the evils of liberalism and communism (which isn't liberalism on an international level -- it's radicalism). You are assigning value to a definition. And if the reasoning is convoluted, it's certainly not my fault; I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature and my class notes.''

::::As far as I can tell, we disagree about "liberal" and "political power". We also disagree about "idealist", and "realist", unless I misunderstood what you were calling a "dreamer" and a "pragmatist". So that's 4 terms. As I've said, I'm not trying to redefine a term, I'm trying to define a different, but similar, term that happens to use the exact same word. It's like the word "constitution". Ohio has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. The United States also has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. Both are similar, they use the same word, but they are not the same thing and one can not be directly applied to the other. Can you tell me, how many Democrats use the UN to negotiate domestic policy? And how many Republicans (realist is the analogy to conservative) use the military to enforce domestic policy?

::::I'm not sure what you mean by the good guy - bad guy thing. Last time you mentioned it you were talking about the bias of my classes, and now... you're the good guy and I'm calling you a bad guy? Or some political leader's a good guy being called a bad guy? I'm not sure.

::::I notice you keep ignoring my qualifications and you still haven't told me yours. You called ''basic'' IP concepts "disinformation". If this is a meritocracy why am I answering to someone who admits to not knowing the subject matter? I'm spending a lot of time here debating when I could be filling out [[User:Jazzman831/redlinks|other fundamental IP and national security concepts]]. It really would be faster if you'd flat out say that one sysop's opinion trumps two people's advanced study, and I'll move on to something else. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

#So, when you quoted your teachers saying "political", you really meant "military." Ahh, now we see point.
#"I never mentioned trade issues. I said most of the qualities on the list make no sense;" when you started this discussion, you expressly stated international issues, and articulated that very well. I never diverted into taxpayer funded abortion or eco-racism or any domestic issues. Nonetheless, international relations still is a sphere of human activities which for the most revolves around one group of persons selling the produce of thier labor to another group of persons, kinda like what happens everyday in grocery stores or an individuals place of employment. Here, the "actors" usually involve governments either facilitiating trade or impeding it (and nowadays, various NGOs also are involved).
#"I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature;" does your literature instruct you to assign a motive of hate to someone who questions its authors reasoning?

What we see here is, "liberals" now are just benign pacificist bureaucrats who stand in contrast to power mad militant killers. And the fact that they are focused on thier institutional jobs which require a political appointment does not make them political, or power hungry in any sense. The are just moreless social workers, focused on international law. Ahh yes, the good guys win out in the end.

As for me, I am a qualified historian. But the nature of my work and career remains classified. I was for many years a partisan political operative, but don't have the stomach much for it anymore, so now I just focus on my true love, historical research and writing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

== Another definition of liberal -2 ==

:Please read my original definition again. Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats or about realists being warmongers or killers. (In fact, realists and liberals were both a response to the same act; liberals did not come to being because of the actions of realists). Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever. Nowhere in the definition is their factually incorrect material. Most importantly, nowhere (within the original definition or elsewhere since then) have I personally endorsed liberalism. (For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist).
:Please let me know when you have actually read anything at all about modern internation political theory, and we can continue this discussion (not that we will need to once you actually read the definition for yourself). You have officially succeeded in bullying me away from a subject you know very little about. Score one for the meritocracy. Good night. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 01:04, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

::Simply put, why the need to redefine the term? Its meaning is very well understood by both liberal activists and critics of liberalism. Redefining it to some nebulous concecpt above that raises more questions than it answers just adds confusion. It's not that different than the Cheka, OGPU, GPU, MVD, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and finally KGB just finding a new name everytime the old one falls into disrepute. But the basic idea remains intact. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Smith: "why the need to define the term?"'''
:::*"Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics"
:::*""Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess"
:::*"Either way, they are still two different meanings"
:::*"there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal)"
:::*"right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist"
:::*"I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''"
:::*"I'm not trying to redefine a term"
:::Maybe from now on I'll just continue my part of the discussion/bullying by copy/pasting my own words. (See other responses below) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, Jazzman is being taught with today's revisionist thinking. One cannot undo in some posts the years of brainwashing, which is what it realistically is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:21, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I resent the implication that I'm not smart enough to know I'm being hoodwinked. I don't know what kind of crap you learned in school, but since I didn't attend the same school you did I don't insult your intelligence by presuming I know more about it than you do. I'd expect the same respect of my eduction. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Of course. If college students got the idea "liberal" meant somewhere between useless and dangerous, we'd be in big trouble. So we have to promote nonsense like the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political. Then throw in the mix things like denying what we just said, or redefine terms in the midst of debate. This moreless puts the liberal stamp on the argument just in case someone gets confused.

::One of the more pecular things about this redefinition is obscuring the line between "politcal" and "coerecive use of force." While liberals evidently are benign pacifists only pursuing careerism in international institutions which govern our lives, we need these politcally appointed caretakers to keep in check the power mad realists who wish to take our rights away, make war, rape the planet, and all sorts of other anti-liberal schemes.

::It's been very "enlightening." And Jazman, here's a realists point of view. [http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/Itemid,49/type,1/] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:25, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Smith: "we have to promote... the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political"'''
:::*"I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power'''"
:::*""You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political '''power'''."'" ''Correct.''" (emphasis added).

:::'''Rob Smith: "redefine terms in the midst of debate"'''
:::*"I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such."
:::*"nothing is different than it was when I started"
:::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''"

:::'''Rob Smith: "liberals evidently are benign pacifists... [more ranty stuff about how I think liberals are better than realists]"'''
:::*"there were no value judgments made"
:::*"There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all."
:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats"
:::*"Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever."
:::*"nowhere... have I personally endorsed liberalism."

:::'''Rob Smith: "power mad realists... [more ranty stuff you think I said about realists]"'''
:::*"Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate '''doesn't mean the same [thing] as what you seem to think it does''')." (emphasis added)
:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about... realists being warmongers or killers."
:::*"For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist"

:::Rob, it is very obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, and you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. At first I wanted to help you understand, but now I see that it's an entirely futile effort. The definition of a liberal is World Politics 101 day 1. ''I literally learned this stuff on the first day of teaching in Intro to World Politics.'' Please let me know when you have taken 1 day of a class, and then your critique might actually have some merit. (Get it? It's that damn meritocracy biting me in the butt again! Talk about revisionism! The one with the most merit is the one with the stronger, more ''admittedly'' ignorant opinion). Your qualms with my definition come not from a problem of the definition, but of your ignorance of the subject matter. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
::::It's so simple. I asked how being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not poltical. You can't explain it. Then, when you (or your teachers whom you claim to parrot) use "political power," somewhere you translate the term "power" into "coersion", Then you turn the phrase around to "power politics", which gives a whole new and entirely different meaning from "political power." I dwell on. I ask you again. You retort: ""Power" in this case would...can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack."

::::Now its hard to see if your parroting your teachers or not. Obviously, "focused on political power", and "focused on power politics" have two entirely different meaning. I pressed you on it several times. When you finally ''did'' give a defintion of "power", it was in reference to something other than what your cited text books said. You referred to "power politics" and military force. Being "focused on political power" does not carry this connotation. And you as yet have not explained how being focused upon institutions and international law is not be being focued on political power. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Rob, read a book, please. Why can't I explain how it's not political? Ready for this? '''It is political'''! It has been the whole time! I said it's not '''POLITICAL POWER'''. Here it comes again:
::::::'''Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power!'''
:::::Got it? They ARE '''political'''. They are NOT '''political power'''. Understand yet?
::::::No. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way; I'm sorry I wasn't careful enough with my phraseology. I'm not a professional teacher. However, if I clarify something, is it really that hard to use the clarification? When I say "political power is not mindless power politics" stick with that; it's what I really mean, even if you misunderstood what I meant otherwise earlier on. It's kinda hard to change the past.

:::::You seriously need to educate yourself in this area before you critique others. You are a historian, so let me use an analogy from within your field of study. What you are asking me is akin to me asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? You would tell me to read chapter one of "World War II for Dummies" and everything would be clear.

:::::Has Conservapedia changed somehow without me knowing? Have Ed Poor and Andy Shlafly turned away from their undying oath to "Conservapedia is a meritocracy"? I also hear people complain a lot about how Wikipedia is scaring away their professionals, leaving them with only novices. Was it possibly because of "discussions" like this one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:05, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way''
::Typical marxist doublespeak.
*''asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? '''You would tell me''' to '''read''' chapter one of '''"World War II for Dummies"'''
::Me recommending commie propaganda? Not likely.

Summary: Ok, so you come here as a student of 101 IP class (whatever IP is, I'm assuming it stands for something like "International Politics" or something; I don't work hard to keep up on academic fads). You give a fairly liberal-to-marxist alleged "definition" of "liberal." The defintion raises more questions than it answers, as marxist gobbledygook usually does. When quearied on it, you (a) claim your just parroting class notes and matierials, (b) begin using words and phrases that evidentally don't appear in the class notes. Then you proceed to give your own interepretation as to what the teachers said while at the same time maintaining its all course material.

Somewhere, beginning with the questions I asked to clarify the definition, everything got lost. This only supports my suspicion the definition you cited is in fact liberal-marxist gobbledygook, and your answers only support that. You started reading things into the text that were not there, for example, the inability to see the difference between "focused on political power" and "focused on power politics" (I pray you are not contemplating pursuing and career in diplomacy).

In spite of all this, and reflecting on it all, I actually have come to see the point you & your teachers are trying to make. Put briefly, the UN & liberals are the good guys, focused on law & every sweet smelling thing, whereas the handful of "realists" in the world, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, and Iranian theocratic actors ignore all this stuff and do what they deem is in thier own best interests. So while Kim Il-Sung spends much of his time watching pornographic videos, the people of Cuba eat rats because the cats & dogs were all eaten decades ago, and the Iranian actor(s) dream of Islamic Middle Eastern hegemony, we all take comfort in the fact they are not lead by dreamers, but by realists.

So you made you point, I understand it. And actually it is not a simple as I've characterized, but I'm not certain you understand what your teachers are saying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

:Is that seriously your response, Rob? That I'm a Marxist? And that my professors are Marxists? And that the "for Dummies" series are commie propaganda? Very professional mode of discourse. I thought sysops were supposed to be of superior quality to other editors, but that reply just makes you sound idiotic. You don't have to do a lot of work to find out that those claims are just plain wrong. For instance I have said several places on this site that I am quite the opposite of a Marxist, and I have said several times within this conversation that I am not a liberal. No offense meant, but do you read my replies, or just skim them for quotes to take out of context?

:Rob, how in the hell do you know what I'm adding to the text? Have you read the text? You don't even know that IP stands for international politics, how are you supposed to somehow magically know what's in an entire IP (that's international politics) text book? I can see the difference between YOUR definition of political power and YOUR definition of power politics. I said before, I'm sorry if I wasn't careful enough, but I MEANT the same thing by the two phrases. I never said the two were the same thing. This whole conversation is about the different use of the same words within two different fields of study -- is it really that hard to grasp that you can't just substitute whatever definition you want?

:For some reason your eyes keep missing this next part, so I'm going to make it easier for you to read: '''''I never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My teacher never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My book never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. I have called myself a realist several times -- why would I call myself a bad guy?''''' This next part is going to blow your mind, ready? If you read my definition and think that liberals are the good guys and realists are the bad guys, it's because YOU think liberalism is somehow inherently good and realism is somehow inherently bad. It's especially baffling to me that you take issue with the fact that Sung, Castro, and various Iranian leaders are bad guys -- and ignore that the US is a good guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem like a very conservative viewpoint here.

:The important point to remember here is that you are pushing away an editor who has made many good faith and useful edits. You obviously don't have many editors with experience in international politics or national security theory, so I found a niche in which I could help out. I have a long list of red links within both of those areas but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily decide you don't like my work. I don't think it's very good for the project as a whole to be in the practice of pushing away editors based on edits in areas in which you have no expertise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:30, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

::To quote [[Ronaldus Magnus]], "Well, ...well,... and ...well...."
::*Ok, so in IP 101 they teach "power politics" and "political power" are the samething; it must be in IP 102 they draw a distinction.
::*You've gone onto a discussion of "realism" without satisfactorily defining "liberalism", so I'm not going to ask for a definition of "realism." Let's just not go there.
::*You've repeatedly made personal comments, some even of disparaging character, which makes me think (a) you are not suited for the field of foreigns affairs, and (b) you are using liberal & commie methods.
::*''"I have a long list of red links ...but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily (sic) decide you don't like my work."''
:::Response: Nothing arbitrary about it. See my recent comment here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&diff=prev&oldid=277033] The source I am referring to calls every US President who opposed Communism a "killer", and FDR, who faciliated Communist enslavement of 100,000,000 people, and handed over 2,000,000 people to the Communists for extermination, a "hero."
:::So let me conclude, you better have your sources particularly well qualified -- '''that is your responsibiltiy.''' If it is commie prop, with commie intent, my job is to keep it and the offending editor out. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

::::*No, they don't teach that they are the same thing. Please read what I wrote and try again. I really am not going to explain this point any more because I can only say the exact same thing so many ways.
::::*Realism is the opposite of liberalism. What realism is, liberalism is not. The two help define each other, and neither makes sense without the other.
::::*You have repeatedly accused me of being a liberal, Marxist and commie, are these not personal remarks? I have observed your behavior; that these traits of yours are disparaging is not my fault.
::::*Wait, so you are basing your Marxist claims on a reference I've never seen? That's a bit of a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiberal&diff=275823&oldid=275814 non-sequiter], don't you think? I never used that source for class, or for this discussion, and until you linked to it I have never read it. It is an anonymous blog, not an international politics authority, and has no bearing in this discussion whatsoever.
::::In conclusion: it's my responsibility to prove that I am qualified (which you define as "gives the answer I want to hear"), even though there's really no way for you to know if I'm qualified, since you aren't familiar with the subject matter. Against my repeated denials, and my declaration on my user page and elsewhere (and my 1000+ uncontested edits to Conservapedia), you continue to call me a "commie" (which is, by the way, a dasparaging remark). You claim my book (which you have not read) is propaganda, my teacher (whom you have not met) is a Marxist, and the entire field of international politics (in which you have had zero hours of training) is secretly a liberal plot to promote socialism, and I'm just not smart enough to notice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:43, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
<--

Ok let's beat a dead horse a little more. I never said anything about you. I refered to some of the arguments and claims you made as being marxist, and you specifically declaimed them all and blamed your teachers. I asked you to clarify a few times who was speaking, but never got a straight answer.

Here's what I think you and/or your teachers are trying to say:
:*Liberalism is defined by "liberal institutions" such as the [[United Nations]], and the rule of law.
:*[[Realpolitik]] characterized a succession of events and crises that finally precipitated the formulation of the United Nations.

So while you and/or your teachers are presenting this basic concept as a study in contrasts, it's really more of an historical progression or development. And using the term "realist" or "realism" creates added confusion; there is nothing wrong with the term ''Realpolitik'' and that is the term IP 101 should be studying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:19, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

:As far as Marxism goes, I really think you are reading your own views into the definition. How can the definitions of liberalism and realism promote Marxism, when Marxism, communisim and socialism are covered under an entirely different label altogether (radicalism)?
:*Kind of, only your version of the definition is circular. Liberalism isn't ''defined'' by institutions, it is ''characterized'' by the ''utilization'' of institutions.
:*We didn't use the term ''realpolitik'', because realist is a better term for modern political science. As I've said before, this wasn't a history class. Certainly you wouldn't want me to start using the modern defintion of liberal (big government, public welfare, income equality, gun control) to describe [[Thomas Jefferson]], would you? ''Realpolitik'' does not describe realism, though it is certainly a subset of realism. Where ''realpolitik'' takes a pragmatic and prescriptive, realism is more reactive and descriptive.

:I was reading through the chapter of RSK and I found this passage interesting and enlightening: "Thus, in a very basic way, the social scientific approach to the study of international relations can be distinguished from the study of international history and international law. Some critics, including some historians, believe that humanity is the least promising area for scientific study because social behavior events -- especially international events -- are too complex and singular. Denying the existence of regularities would leave us to study only specific cases or to produce detailed descruptions, with no cumulation of knowledge for the scholar or policy maker. If every historical event is truly unique, and thus incomparable, the gulf between the social scientist and [historian] is indeed unbridgeable."

:That quotation again brings to mind the usefulness of giving veto power to someone from another discipline, but I'm sure I'll get nowhere raising that question again. I will ask this though: without changing my definition (which is correct) is there anyway you would agree to add it to the article? In other words, is trying to explain it anymore an excercise in futility? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yah but virtually all these alleged "realist" actors are members of the liberal insitution, the UN. And this definition of "realism" is misleading, because in truth they are virtually non-existent (Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 is the only case in recent memory).

::That is a very interesting quote; I'd gather from it (and other evidence) RKS are trying to "systematize" the study of international relations. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but I believe some of the cracks in the foundation have been identified. Namely, attempting to draw a straight line from early twentieth century liberalism til now.

::Here's my criticism of RSK based upon what you've quoted: they are refereing to [[classical liberalism]], and the idea's of "liberal democracy" and "liberal institutions" expounded by [[Woodrow Wilson]], not [[Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Alger Hiss]], and [[Josef Stalin]], the architects of the [[United Nations]]. So before we travel down this path too far, we must reexamine what the architects of this system of liberal governance and international law had in mind, what the historical record produced. Then we must separate that from Wilsonian ideology. And somewhere in the mix, we would also have to hammer the square peg of "realism" into the round hole of "liberalism," which our United Nations forefathers left for us. Do you see the problem? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I do see the problem, and it's the same problem we've had the entire time: you are confused about my definition.

:::First of all, being a member of the UN does not automatically disqualify you from realism. For example, the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic). Just as liberal/conservative is not a solid black and white, liberal/realist also contains shades of gray.

:::Secondly, you keep complaining about drawing a line through history, even though I keep telling you that international politics is not a study of history; we briefly discussed history to understand the context of the current meaning. If you want to discuss the intimate details of the history of the word liberalism be my guest, but I can't contrubute.

:::Lastly, by "liberalism" RSK do not mean classical liberalism. You keep trying to pigeonhole a new definition into something you understand. If this definition of liberalism could simply fit into some other definition, I certainly wouldn't have spent 5 days trying to convince you otherwise. It really would be a lot more efficient if you were to read some IP texts, as I have suggested many times; at least then I know we are speaking from the same perspective. (Though I highly doubt this definition would be in contention at all once you did some reading; maybe you won't like the idea of liberalism but at least you would agree that the definition is correct).

:::I ask again, is there a possible answer that could satisfy you anyway? Am I simply wasting my time? If you will only be satisfied when I break down and say "Rob you are right; the entire field of international politics doesn't know the definition of liberal" then we need to stop right here; that's simply not going to happen. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Ahh haa....''the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic).'' Right right. So by this definition, we can put GW Bush in the same camp with the Bismark, the Kaiser, and Hitler. And this isn't Marxist goobledygook? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Here's the problem: divorce this idea of "liberal" from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue [[United_Nations#UN_Sexual_Abuse_Scandals|pedophile Peacekeepers]] and the greedy [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil for Food scam]] represents modern "liberalism"). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Are you really that thick Rob? [[User:NadhoB|NadhoB]] 20:48, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::''My little finger is thicker than my father's loins.'' (1 Kings 12:10). [http://bible.cc/1_kings/12-10.htm] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:06, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::(I'm going to ignore the "loin" comment, because frankly it brings to mind disturbing images.)

:::::I'm assume, since you are a historian (which I believe without having you prove it, by the way), that you know that those three Germans you mentioned didn't skirt the UN, since they all died before the UN's formation. I'm guessing what you meant by the "goobledygook (sic)" comment is that those four were all realists? If so, you are making the false assumption that if one or many members of a group are bad then all must be bad. The United States is a realist power, and like it or not, some dictatorships are also realist powers. This isn't Marxist opinion, it's a fact (and anyway you haven't shown any glorification of Marxist ideas, only the association of "good" ideas with "bad" ones). So, if I use your logic, the United States can't be realist, because only bad guys are realist. This, by process of elimination, makes us liberal instead, which by your definition (the definition on the main article) means that as leader of our country, President Bush supports abortion, high taxes, same-sex marriage, fair trade, labor unions and globalism? That doesn't seem right to me, but then again, I only have a background in international politics, not world history.

:::::I ask again (third time's the charm, I hope): what are you looking for? I will not change my answer, because I do not profess to know more than an entire field of political scientists. Can I ever convince you that I am actually right, or will you only stop when I stand down and say that you (someone who has no experience in the field) know better than I? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

Go back and see what I posted before: you somehow got "liberalism" all confused and bound up with the United Nations. The United Nations is not democratic, never was, and may perhaps never will be. The United Nations is not even a parliament or law making body.

So if you wish to discuss the concept of liberalism in the field of international relations, foreign policy, "globalism", or whatever, forget using the UN as part of that definition. We may discuss it as part of an example, or in its historical context & development, its role in international relations, foreign policy and globalization, but let's not use it as part of a defintion. To quote yourself, "That makes no sense." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:Please look at my definition. It really clears a lot of things up when you know what you are talking about.

:Liberalism is not defined by the UN, the UN is an example of liberalism, as it clearly says in the definition. I added it as a clarification to the reader; to give the reader something with which they are familiar in order to solidify the concept. Liberalism does not hinge on democracy, as it says clearly in the definition (you were the first an only person to mention democracy, so how it got mixed up with what I said is beyond me). Remember those "international institutions", "international law", and "avoidance of political power" things you got hung up on before (they were all in my definition)? Those are what liberalism hinges on, not democracy. Liberals generally support [[democratic peace theory]] (great another red link; guess the IP nerds all got scared off), but that's not because liberals promote and requires democracy, it's because they recognize that democracies lower the barrier towards creating a "complex interdependance" between states (another term directly from my original definition).

:Why does the UN have to be a law making body? Didn't we have the conversation about "actors" verses "states" already? Any state, NGO, or IGO (such as the UN) is an actor. Any actor can be classified as liberal, realist, radical, or somewhere along the scale between them (though since most can not use force, there is a high proportion of liberal IGOs and NGOs).

:So since you tell me to use the UN as an example, and I do use it as an example, I guess you finally think something I say is right? (Have you actually been reading up on international politics? Or am I actually changing your mind?) I'm going to ask you a fourth time, because I'm really curious how long you will go before you read all the way down to the bottom of one of my responses: will you ever budge? Will you keep debating me until I give in and use your definition of a term from a subject in which you have no background? I'm not ever going to admit that you know more about a subject I have studied and you have not, so is there even a point to this conversation? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:02, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:*''the UN is an example of liberalism''
::This is where we have a problem.
:*''Liberalism does not hinge on democracy''
::This is where we have another problem. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:19, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::I'm just butting in here, but I think the country would be much better off without the UN. They are way too libral and only seek to stop the United States from taking actions, like in Iraq. As for the second point, Liberalism does not need democracy to florish--look at Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:27, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::*''Rob does not have a background in international politics'''
:::Problem three. Minor problem, as long as you are willing to learn new ideas.
::*''Rob clearly doesn't read my entire post, but still expects to understand my entire argument''
:::Problem four. A larger problem, because I'm starting to get tired of repeating myself.
::*''Rob wants to apply '''his''' definition to liberalism (as well as realism, actor, and political power) then claim my examples don't fit '''my''' definition.
:::Problem five. Pretty major hurtle to overcome, which really stems from a combination of problems three and four. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's take the example of Saddam Hussein, of recent memory. Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, recieved equal status and representation in this alleged "liberal" organization, the United Nations, by murdering anyone who opposed him. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::And? That does no damage to my definition of liberal (you know, the thing way up there that I keep referring to).

:::::If I remember correctly, the UN allows practically all states as members. It seems to me that allowing all states to join, even those who do "bad things", should, at least theoretically, encourage diplomatic cooperation between states, shouldn't it? Kicking out Saddam or refusing his entry would only encourage him to keep on with his evil ways, and it would especially discourage any diplomatic action. What part of this is not liberal? This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim. Besides, if they had to reassess each country's policies every time they got a new leader the system would become so bogged down with wrangling membership that they would never get anything done. (Well, not that they get much done now, but that's a seperate issue entirely!) You are just substituting your opinion of the UN for a valid argument. Definitions do not judge, they describe. If you don't like what the definition describes that is entirely different than thinking the definition is false.

:::::I'm going to go for five (!) now: what are you looking for? Do you want compliance with your worldview, despite the fact that you have admitted to having no knowlege of the subject matter at hand (international politics)? Is there, theoretically, something I can say which will actually make you agree, or is this just going to go on until I decide I don't want to edit the encyclopedia anymore? I surely hope it's not the latter, as forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're really not getting anywhere. You're not even trying to answer my questions, and your personal demeaning responses directed at me only add weight to this being marxist trolling. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Rob, nowhere in my post did I attack you, but you imply, again, that I am a Marxist. Isn't this demeaning? This is an ad homenem argument that has no basis in this debate, and at any rate is easily refuted by my numerous edits on this site. You also complain that I'm not answering your questions. Your last post contained no questions, therefore there were none to answer. I did write a lengthy response to your statement, though; I don't really know what else I could have done to satisfy you.

''My'' post, however, had five questions, none of which you answered. One set of questions I have asked five times total, just within my last 6 posts, and you have either not been reading my posts all the way through, or you have decided to ignore my question entirely. In fact, since I left a message to you within my post to check your thoroughness and you didn't make any reference to it, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that you aren't reading carefully, which explains how we can be discussing a 66-word definition for over 6 days. I take it, by the fact that your posts get shorter and more vague each time, that you have run out of criticisms. Is this a fair assessment? (And, before you say it, that's not meant to be an attack; your posts ''have'' gotten shorter, and they get less and less specific as time goes on. Your last one didn't even reference the subject in question). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, here's a response: the 66 word definition is trash, unencyclopdic, marxist tripe, and the type of garbage used to corrupt young minds on college campuses. Fair enough? I answered your question. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::According to the same 66 word definition, [[NATO]] would be a "liberal organization". [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 14:23, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Correct, Samwell. Collective security is a major attribute of liberalism, thanks for the helpful example. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not really sure where to put this, but I wrote it to respond to Rob's post then had to go to class and never posted it. I'm going to keep it separate from the pedophilia discussion, because... well I just will. Begin original message:

::Such a strong intellectual argument, Rob. I'm glad you are contributing positively and with solid points, not at all how you guys always claim a liberal would respond. I'm pretty sure if I had come up with an answer such as yours you would have complained that I was demeaning you again. If I or another editor had said that about something you wrote you would have blocked them and called them a troll. This is just another sentence to see how thoroughly you read what I write. I'm still betting on "skim". If you don't have any more arguments, it's not time to turn to ridicule. It's ok though, this probably doesn't happen to you very often. Most of the time around this site editors get blocked long before a sysop runs out of counterarguments; you just don't know what to do when confronted with this situation. Here's what you do: thank an editor for his well-defended contribution and add it to the article.
::*Trash: says who? And why? There are a lot of people who disagree with you and you really need some actual solid points to back a claim like that up.
::*Unencyclopedic : how? The definition is written in absolutely encyclopedic language, and it's just as useful in an encyclopedia as any other political ideology. This is also the first time you have had any problems with its use in the encyclopedia.
::*Marxist tripe: back to the old standby, I see (though you finally dropped the "gobbledygook"). How is my definition Marxist? You've never really explained that, and the only time you've ever actually used the word is to denegrate me in some way. I'm assuming you do know what Marxism is, and you aren't simply using it as an attack word. This is a correct assumption, right?
::*Garbage used to corrupt young minds: ah yes, insulting my intellegence again (and that of the many thousands of political scientists in the world). I fail to see how this stuff corrupts anybody at all. You also have failed to prove the motive of an entire field of political science (including those outside academia) to corrupt minds. At any rate, all you have to go on is what little I have told you about my entire political science experience. It's really rather ignorant to assume that you know everything about political science based on a couple of claims, especially when I've stated over and over that I'm simplifying some of them for the sake of argument and brevity.
::In conclusion, you are requiring me to have an overwhelming burdon of proof, wheras you seem to just spout off things from time to time, and then drop them when you can't back them up. I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but you keep calling me names and resorting to unsupported claims and accusations. I try to answer every single point in each of your posts, and then you accuse me of not answering your questions. You sort of answered some of my questions, but it's still rather clear that you aren't reading all the way down to the bottom of my posts (and not reading all of the text within my posts). I asked a question 5 times, and referred to it one more time. You last post answers it tangentially at best. I'd ask it again, but you can just read the last paragraph of 5 of my last 7 or so posts and find it there, written five different ways. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, let's divert into the specifics: The UN Security Council obviously is made of realists, isn't it? Why would it exist otherwise? And we know realists are invited to join this liberal organization. How do realists get in? They practice realism, i.e. kill all thier domestic poltical opponents, and that qualifies them as members of a liberal organization.

:::How does the Security Council of this liberal organization keep peace? It sends pedophiles to commit atrocities. And this is "being focused on international law."

:::Right. We know where all this is going, don't we? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Where what is going? You seem a little obsessed with pedophiles today, Rob. Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument. I'm trying to have a rational discussion and you can't seem to get past your own opinion.

::::Realists have to kill all their domestic "poltical" opponents to get in to the UN? Are you nuts? Who did George Bush kill to become president? I believe you'd call me a Marxist (incorrectly, of course) if I suggested Bush violently forced himself into office.

::::As for the Security Council there are two points to be made. The first and most important point I have made before: politics is not black and white. Just as being a member of the UN does not automatically make you a liberal, using force does not automatically make you a realist. What is the UN's process? Do they shoot first and ask questions later? No, they discuss issues for months and months before anything happens; this inaction has lead to the death of thousands of people. This is another sentence I'm putting in to check your reading comprehension. You are zero for three so far. When they do use force, it's not using it to "keep, increase, or demonstrate [its] power," which is how realists use force (it's from the definition page, by the way). The UN does not have an army, it has a Peacekeeping force. It does not build up its force to influence countries into action, it sends in force to keep the peace. Technologically, the UN Peacekeepers are not set out for warfare, and purposfully so. If you have to have a military force, this is certainly the most liberal way to do so. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:::*''Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument''
:::You gonna deny an organization you've bent over backwards for days now, to say, "The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization" did not send pedophiles while it was " focused on international laws"? I gave you fair warning above, at least twice, "forget using the UN as part of that definition", "divorce this idea of 'liberal' from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue pedophile Peacekeepers and the greedy Oil for Food scam represents modern "liberalism"). But for some reason, you wish to continue pushing the idea pedophilia is liberal. You almost have me convinced now to put this stuff in. Be my guest and convince me, please. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Rob how can I ever convince you of anything, when you clearly aren't actually reading my defense? Believe me, it has very difficult so far. Did I say they did not send pedophiles, or are you just assuming that's what I must have said? It ''is'' ignorant to say that "the UN can not be liberal because it sends pedophiles to commit atrocities". Are you trying to say that they actually recruit pediphiles, and send them out with the order "go be bad little men"? This is the fifth time I've added a sentence for you to miss when you aren't reading what I write. That is not a rational or credible argument whatsoever. It's a great rhetorical argument, though -- but rhetoric is something they teach in revisionist classes, not educational ones. I didn't take the revisionest class, so I'm not really sure whether or not to associate pedophilia with liberalism or realism. It kind of just sounds like not strong enough background checks to me.

::::I really wonder why you are so afraid of calling the United Nations a liberal organization. You obviously don't like the UN, but you also don't like liberals, so what's wrong with associating them? Are you a liberal, or are you just being argumentitive because you've run out of things to say? You are trying really really hard to prove something that (a) isn't true and (b) isn't in your own interest to prove. I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Would you agree the UN "Peacekeepers" have sufferred some damage, and people may rather continue thier own bloody conflicts rather than import US taxpayer funded pedophiles? And where are the liberal reformers to reform this liberal mess? What about US taxpayers who pay 40% of the UN's budget? What are we supposed to do? Say, let that liberal organization handle its own mess it created, and continue footing the bill? What happens when liberals start trashing the US for funding UN pedophiles? Don't say I didn't say I told you so, cause I did. There is a serious, serious crisis in liberalism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:09, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Rob, do you agree with socialism? Do we have a definition of socialism on the socialism page? Do you agree with homosexuality? Do we have a definition of homosexuality on the homosexuality page? Do you agree with evolution? Do we have a definition of evolution on the theory of evolution page? (I could keep going, but I find you barely read anything I write, and my wrists are getting tired). You obviously don't agree with liberalism, but yet you still aren't allowing a definition of liberalism on the liberalism page.

The point is this: '''stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe.''' Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is ''not the same'' as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism ''is''. If it makes you feel better, I admit that some UN peacekeepers are apparently pedophiles. What does this contribute to the definition of liberalism? Nothing. Nothing at all.

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:This really is one monster of a debate. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::That it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:04, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Saddam is realist? Who opposed Saddam's removal? Who opposed Iraqi democracy? Who, while being focused on international law and institutions, refused to enforce thier own resolutions? Who opposed bringing [[human rights]] to Iraq? And who to this day opposes Iraqi democracy and human rights? Your professors & school books ignore all this, and it did not happen over night; that is to say, "liberals" abandoning "liberalism", and "liberal actors" abandoning "liberalism" isn't just a phenomenea of recent years. Its been developing for several decades now.

This isn't my definition, but it is an observation anyone can see of recent events. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, we are back to Saddam then? You keep jumping around from topic to topic and it's hard to tell what will catch your interest next. To answer your questions, in order: yes, the US (in a realist way, overruling the UN's failing liberal tactics), terrorists? (unless you are talking rhetorically; remember I said I didn't take the rhetorical class), the UN (decision making is another portion of international politics study; read the book and this makes sense), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically). You did not go to my class and you did not read my text books, please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Examples_of_liberal_bias&oldid=250130]

:The point is this: '''stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe.''' Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is ''not the same'' as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism ''is''.

:I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::What do you know of Toynbee's theory of Challlenge and Response? [http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/1999/03/ii-genesis-of-civilizations.html#V.C.II.(b),p.364,n.1]

:::"the challenge of being called upon to create a political world-order the framework for an economic world-order ...now confronts our Modern Western society...the challenge of the increase in material 'drive' which Industrialism and Democracy entail ...confronts our own society in our day in an unprecedentedly high degree. ...now, in the twentieth century, the problem of 'world-order' and 'material drive', which found no solution in the medieval city-state cosmos, have presented themselves again—and this time more intensely than ever—on the newly-achieved scale of the Great Society. "

:::This is written by probably the foremost promulgator of all the arguements that were presented to all the founding "actors" of the United Nations to induce them to participate (trust me, I know the language). And if wish to read his material, I'll present it chapter and verse. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not familiar with Toynbee. Could you paraphrase what it has to do with this? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Toynbee was the Director of the [[Royal Institute of International Affairs]] and [[Chatham House]], the editor of [[Survey of International Affairs]], and other works. Toynbee lays out all the reasons of what, how, and why the United Nations came into existence. His works have all the arguments that were made to every nation, language, and culture, as to ''why'' they should participate in the international organization of the United Nations. It is the central theme of his life work, really beginning even ''before'' WWII when the League Treaty was still in effect.

:::::Toynbee began his ''Study of History'' in 1927 and completed it in 1963. He's not only an eyewitness of all the events, beginning with in his own words, when "1914 seized my generation by the throat," down through the failed League, Spanish Civil War, Appeasement, Chamberlain, Hitler, the Commintern, Japan, Churchill, the Atlantic Charter, Stalin, etc. etc. etc., with all the historical background material relating to six surviving, of 23 civilizations (in his accounting, however he allows for other variations) that have appeared on planet earth since the dawn of history.

:::::Toynbee made all the arguments to all founding signatories of the United Nations Charter. Familiarize yourself with some of the background material, then we can discuss the the stuff from your 101 text book from a US government funded college campus you wish to insert. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism. I also find it interesting that now you are asking me to familiarize myself with some random reference you give me, when I asked you to familiarize yourself with any source piked from a large body of study and you have not.

Also, you are presuming to know something about my education again, which I asked you not to do. Please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Examples_of_liberal_bias&oldid=250130] I go to a private school, with minimum government funding, at most, and certainly no government determination of the curriculum. I am attending this school thanks to the generosity of alumni and by significantly increasing my own debt. Please do not suggest that I am mooching off the efforts of the hard-working American taxpayer.

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Toynbee is not an observer of others, Toynbee expresses the reasons why a UN was needed. To use the short hand you like, Toynbee was an insider. Toynbee is the granddaddy of em all in expounding the intellectual arguments and reasons that ''others'' responded to when they signed up to join the UN. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:05, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... ok. I never said he was an observer of others, or that he wasn't an insider. In fact, I've admitted to not even knowing who the man was. Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism.

::I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll be happy to enter into a ''modus vivendi'' with you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::About the UN, or about the whole definition? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Does this definition state how the liberal organization, the United Nations, and others self described as liberals, ''actively opposed'' the removal the realist, Saddam Hussein? IOW, the liberal UN & liberals opposed human rights, opposed democracy, and supported a realist. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Sooooooo... what happened to the ''modus vivendi''?

I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I gave you chance to explain how libs & lib orgs support realism; you dodged the question. Let's do the ''modus vivendi''. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::I "dodged" your loaded question because you brought up a modus vivendi then changed the subject, and I was trying to change it back.

::Which part are you talking about, specifically, when you say you are willing to end the discussion? I've been willing to agree to disagree on the liberalness of the UN, and I have said six times (I counted) that I'm willing to drop this part of the definition if that's the only thing holding it up. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, let's see some proposed text. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Man, I hope you're joking. Here's the text:

:::::In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues.

:::::The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].

::::[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Just don't see where any of it applies; especially in light of of liberal support of realism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Rob, with all due respect: what the hell? You are trying to say that the UN disproves my definition, because it's a liberal organization that acts like a realist. That is a complete logical fallacy -- it either is liberal, or it is realist. Pick one. If it follows my definition it's a liberal, and if it doesn't it's a realist. You simply ''can't'' use it as an example to disprove my definition. (And at any rate, your argument shows a poor understanding of liberalism; "supporting" realism doesn't necessarily negate liberalism.) Besides, I thought we agreed to disagree about the UN anyway. Why do you keep bringing up other issues? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Either a liberal or a realist? Where did this come from? Talk about a logical fallacy. You'd do better to argue its either a carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore--that would have more standing in fact, logic, reason, or evidence. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Fine, what is it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:14, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Its a conglomeration of some sort. It supposedly has lofty ideals, but an abysmal record, particularly since its very founding. It has fundamental flaws in who it allows as members. And most troubling aspect of all is the pure tripe and disinformation it indocrtinates child with in the American public school system regarding (a) it purpose, (b) how it functions, (c) its history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:22, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, if you refuse to label it, then it doesn't really hurt my definition, right? I took the UN out of the definition, just for you. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The UN is a community of diplomats living in close proximity to one another. It almost a ''Sharashka'' of sorts, to use a Russian word. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka][http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2740/circle.html] I see Ed Poor recently referred to it a "parliament", but it is not a parliament. By parliament we mean law making body. It is not a law making body, and has no legislative powers. You will note the American representative is an Ambassador, and not a Legislator; to be otherwise would be inviolation of the [[Separation of Powers]] doctrine, as any school child can discern.

::::It's just a location were various soveign governments get together and debate, discuss, and sometimes actually conclude various multilateral international agreements. But unlike a parliamentary system, those agreements are only binding upon the participatory powers, and not other non-signatories to an agreement. Use of force is a separate issue, and I can discuss that separately. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So can we put my definition of liberal into the page, since I took the UN part out, and the UN "isn't liberal"? Is there something wrong with my definition, now that the UN is gone? (We can debate the fact that what you just described is very, very, liberal at a later time. Right now I'd rather finish this discussion before starting another.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
<--

Given the record recently (in the post-Soviet era) of child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein, how does this definition of "liberal", in "international politics", making any sense whatsoever? It only confuses an already confused situation. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Given whose record, the UN's? I said I'll debate that elsewhere with you. I'm more worried about the definition of liberal right now (which, again, no longer includes the UN, for this very reason). Liberalism does not have a record of "child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein," unless you are applying the definition of liberal to the UN, which you said I could not do. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::You lost me. You brought forward an idea the "liberal" either didn't have, or made no sense in whatever "international politics" is (an idea undefined); then you proposed a defintion that made little or no sense. Now you appear to be grasping about for some idea or concept to fit the word "liberal" together with some notion of conduct of international affairs between states or other entities, or perhaps some worldview taught on college campuses about what liberalism is or how liberalism functions or is applied in the conduct of international affairs between states and other entities.

::I don't see the point in stringing meaningless words and phrases together to allege some kind of ideological construct behind them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:53, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, I've explained before what [[international politics]] is. I might have filled out the red link a week ago, but this discussion has greatly slown down my productivity. International politics is the study of political interactions between entities ("actors") on an international level. Just as politics on a city level are vastly different from those on the state level, politics on the intranational level are vastly different than those on the international level.

:::Please tell me why my definition makes no sense. I've been trying to clarify it for you for days now. I've answered all of your questions about it, but you still seem to have some massive misunderstands of the concept. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

You've said many times, "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics" and it "makes no sense on the international level." I agree with this. You and your textbooks are attempting to systemize the study of international relations, absent the historical context. That's fine, but this page here, as you've been told several times by me & Ed, probably isn't the place to do it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Where should I do it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::Something might be able to be done with [[liberal democracy]], however this definition you're using goes beyond that. It attempts to refer to UN participatory states such as North Korea, the CCP, and Saddam as participants and beneficiaries of these "liberal" institutions. Frankly I'm not sure, it seems like trying to drive a square peg in a round hole. If the subject is international realtions and international affairs (which you refer to as international politics), I'd suggest focusing upon that subject, and if the term "liberal" comes up in some meaningful context, it might apply or be used. (But I get the impression your focus or interest is more upon trying to give a convoluted meaning to this term moreso than writing upon those subjects).
::Yes, the study of international relations can be systematized, but it still needs historical context to give it any real meaning, and to gain any understanding of it. I was just reading a Congressional Research Service report, ''Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Transformational Diplomacy'', and noticed that "actor" was used several times, for example, “Since 1945, the United States has conducted its foreign relations in the context of a world that practiced what can be called Classic Diplomacy. It was a world in which government-to-government relations were the principal activity....a world, in short, in which nations were '''''more sovereign and independent actors than today’s environment allows them to be''''' on the cusp of the 21st century.”2

::I do not deny this language is gaining currency, and it would be helpful to sytematize it for students of diplomacy. So we're just faced with the everyday common problem of having our words convey precise meaning. "Liberalism", for example, appears to be in some sort of disarray and crisis for a period going on several decades now. It simply would be easier to find other more descriptive words to use, than to use ambigious terminology no one agrees on.

::Finding acceptable, agreeable solutions, this at its core should be the diplomats mission. Trying to force an issue is "realism", as I've come to understand it the way you have explained. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:24, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::My goal isn't to force this "convoluted" meaning, and I did fully intent to write more articles which utilized the meaning. However, I didn't want to put tons of effort into writing those articles before I found out whether or not the foundation for them was going to be there. So, instead of writing about IR/IA/IP and leaving redlinks to the fundamentals, I wanted to build from the ground up.

:::As for systemization, this seems to be the difference of opinion between social scientists (i.e. political scientists) and historians, which I mentioned above (way, way, way above :p). I find it most useful to define the term "liberal" then look for the liberalness of modern institutions (if that makes sense). Certainly, even if liberalism is in "disarray" (which I'm not sure I agree with), there ''are'' principals of liberalism in most if not all international institutions. (It's also not accurate to say that "nobody" agrees on the definition; it is used identically in every work I've ever found in international politics). So instead of saying that no liberal institutions exist, we explain, using a common definition, the "liberal" and "realist" actions of any actor.

:::To draw an analogy to American politics, there are very few "liberals", "conservatives" and "libertarians" in America, if we use the complete definition of each of those words. However, there are many people with liberal, conservative and libertarian traits. This isn't to say that everyone is moderate, just that humans are too complex to ever fit a perfect definition. In order to function at all in a discussion of American politics (and the analogical international politics) we have to define the "perfect" value, then discuss if and how an actor deviates. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::To recycle what I said years ago, the term "liberal" was hijacked. True liberals, such as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Boris Yeltsin managed to get on with thier lives without dying for a cause or trying to rehabilitate the term. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::I agree that the (American politics) term "liberal" has changed since its first use. As a historian, I'm sure you know much more about the history of the word than I do. However I'm not very sure what you imply by the comment. If you are trying to say that I don't need to rehabilitate a term to discuss international politics then you are correct -- I am trying to add a new term. If you are trying to say liberalism doesn't mean what it used to you are also correct -- and that is also why I'm trying to add this new definition.

:::::The bottom line is that this conversation greatly lowers my productivity, and I need a straight answer from you about whether you are ever going to allow this definition or not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:57, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::IMO, it confuses both readers of this page, ''and'' students of IP. I'd suggest getting other texts to see what language they use; it's just a theoretical definition, and an ideological one at that. I'll check the CRS cite I made above and see what kind of language the use. It is extrememly current (dated August 23) and is written for Congressional Representatives, House & Senate,and Congressional staffers. This is the actual text and language they use to analyize information and discuss issues. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:18, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Well, it didn't seem to confuse students in my class, but it's your opinion that counts since you are the one who can edit the page. I'll see if I can find other sources, but I'm rather limited (my school is pretty secluded, and I don't have a car). In the mean time, I think if you picked up an IP text you would find it enlightening. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==CRS Report==
Ok, here's some extracts from the CRS Report :

"'''U.S. Diplomacy — Need for Change'''

"Many foreign affairs experts believe that the international system is undergoing
a momentous transition affecting its very nature. For indicators of this change, they
point to the end of the bipolar world of the Cold War, the changing nature of the
nation state on which the existing international system is based, the rise of new
national power relationships, as well as the growth in the number and the role of nonstate
participants (ed. note: or "actor") in the international arena. These experts also note the impact that
the changes in worldwide communications, due to advances in technology, have had
on international relations. For the United States to continue to lead in this world,
they argue, it will have to make adjustments to how it operates and relates within the
changing system and the new, intense political aspirations causing these changes.6
Even before the United States entered the 21st Century, however, foreign affairs
officials and experts were '''calling for reforms of the foreign affairs infrastructure, foreign assistance and public diplomacy programs''', as well as the need to address the
changing roles between the Department of State (State) and the Department of
Defense (DOD) in foreign affairs. According to then Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright in 1999,
:The past decade has witnessed a transformation of the world political situation...Challenges such as transnational law enforcement, global terrorism, democracy building, protection of the environment, refugee issues, and access to global markets and energy sources now compete with traditional security and political issues for policymakers’ attention. These changes demand that we reexamine the nature and basic structure of our overseas presence.7

"'''The Foreign Affairs Institutional Infrastructure'''.

"In the 1990s, several
organizations and think tanks voiced concerns about the inadequacy of the U.S.
diplomatic infrastructure. The Department of State’s own report said that the United
States overseas presence '''“is near a state of crisis” and “perilously close to the point of system failure.”'''8 Experts called for the enhancement of the security of U.S. posts
and missions abroad, the right-sizing of these posts based upon U.S. interests in a
particular country and a continual readjustment as policy needs changed, the
'''improvement of training opportunities''' in terms of foreign language skills and jobrelated
training, and the modernization of communications/information technology
at the State Department and its posts and missions abroad. ....

'''Comment''' : So, this is just to give some flavour of the text. Now, while it discusses need for reform, better training, etc., and uses terms like "actor" to refer to things "non-state entities" throughout the text, one big concern is the need for reform and better trained people in the post-Soviet era. Nowhere, throguout this 32 page document, does it use the term "liberal", or "realist." My guess is dropping such nonsense is part of reform & better training. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:08, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, so Congressmen don't use the terms. I wouldn't really expect them to. If I were going to write a report about alternative fuels I wouldn't start using terms like "integrated gasification combined cycle" or "cellulosic ethanol", I would say "coal-derived fuels" and "E85". Unless my audience is other chemical engineers I also wouldn't go into the various catalysts, enzymes, reactors, separators etc. needed to do produce each of these fuels. Similarly, "liberal" and "realist" are useful to the political theorist, but only get in the way of a policy maker's work. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal organization"==
BTW, using your definition, " The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization," we're having a discussion of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm liberal pedophilia] at [[Talk:Main_Page#Amnesty_International "...abortion should be allowed for victims of rape and incest. Especially in the Darfur region..."]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:30, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this was posed to me, but that does not seem like the type of discussion I want to be engaged in. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you all aren't Liberals engaging in a massive parody of yourselves? Because thats the way it feels with some of the cringeworthy things you come out with [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 13:35, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well either the UN is "a liberal organization" or its not, and either a pedophile is a pedophile, or its not. Add to that, either pedophile Peacekeepers are the solution to all conflicts or they are not.

::Put another way, either liberal solutions are the answer to our problems or they are not. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::But the definition of '''liberal''' used in American politics and the definition of '''liberal''' used in international politics are not the same. They are different concepts. It is common for different disciplines to have separate meanings for the same word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you Porthos. That's what I've been saying since day 1. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::That is exactly what I've been saying to since day one: this definition is [[classical liberalism]] and related to Wilsonian democracy, and you can't draw a straight line to modern "liberalism.' You're the one insisting pedophiles who work for this institution are focused on international law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:03, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Am I? I don't remember mentioning pedophiles anywhere. I do remember mentioning something about not judging a group by some of its members though. I have also addressed your classical liberalism qualm up above, where this discussion is taking place. I've answered it, but you probably didn't read my answer. Please stop reaching for an excuse to find something wrong with my definition. I won't gloat if you change your mind and agree with me; I will thank you and carry on making useful edits to the encyclopedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Let's not label the UN as "liberal". I'd prefer to reserve the general use of ''liberal'' for American politics. US liberals might support aspects of UN policy, but that doesn't make the UN "liberal". It just means that bad people like bad policy.

The UN deserves much criticism, and some of its anti-Americanism may coincide with US liberalism. But the UN is a nothing more than a parliament of the world's nations. Each nation gets one votes, even the itty-bitty ones with postage stamp area and a handful of people. Feh! I'm going to bed.... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:50, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, a more thorough discussion of the liberalness or not liberalness of the UN (and what we mean by liberalness) can be found in the above two sections. Beware, the reading's a doozy! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*You ask way too much of Ed! He would be driven to hanging himself before completing two paragraphs of that! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:48, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Meh. Good thing the same can't be said for Rob or me, or CP would be getting some very negative headlines!! (Don't think WP's ever had a suicidal editor). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Digression==
Jazzman: the point you've been driving at on the ''realism v liberalism'' has always been understood, how ''liberalism'' stands for everything true, noble and good, and ''realism'' is the domain of killers and Satanists (like Bismarck, the Kaiser, Hitler, Saddam, and GW Bush), I direct your attention to some primary source research I am heavily involved in which anaylizes the founders of this brave new world, the aspirations of the dictators and progenators of these noble "liberal institutions" :

:"As these three men sat down to confer, two of them, [[Stalin]] and [[Churchill]], were '''[[realist]]s''' with their eyes fixed on definite objectives in the interest of their respective governments. They wanted specific and realizable things. Roosevelt deceived himself into believing that the mere meeting of himself and Stalin was "half his battle" as he told [his son] Elliott, and that, for the rest, he wanted to create a condition of mutual trust and understanding . ''Specific agreements about the postwar world could wait, trusting to mutual good will to provide the desired solutions'' ."

:"Major General Deane, who was at all the conferences as the head of the U.S. Military Mission, wrote :
::'Stalin appeared to know just what he wanted at the conference . This was also true of Churchill, ''but not of [[Franklin Roosevelt|Roosevelt]]'' . . . His apparent indecision was probably the result of our [[obscure]] [[foreign policy]] ."'(Italics added) 74

:"General Deane points out that Roosevelt was thinking of winning the war but that Stalin and Churchill were thinking of ''their relative positions when the war was won''. Stalin got everything he wanted - everything without any exceptions . Churchill did not, because Roosevelt, in pursuit of his [[vain]] policy, sided with Stalin against Churchill . Roosevelt got nothing, as we shall see . He got, of course, the [[United Nations]]." ([http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/The_Roosevelt_Myth-John_T_Flynn-1948-444pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=276&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pgs. 353-354]) [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:36, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

The first bullet is: "denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

I have concerns about backing up the validity of this statement...some citation would make it much more credible. I understand that this may be public belief, but without a trustworthy poll or a trustworthy article which proves that, It shouldn't be included. I'd tag this for POV and soapboxing.

== DIfferent definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-10-21T14:43:45Z

Alloco1: list of liberal positions is a half-truth

Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1

2007-10-18T21:23:02Z

Alloco1: Quote from Ruse is misleading

=="Affirmative sites"===
Surely this is a joke. Not one of those sites is a reputable source from proponents of evolution describing a "religion" called Evolutionism. This article needs to be deleted. I was for deletion when it was first written, and I stand by that view. I appreciate the hard work the author put into the entry but the fact remains that this article is a slap in the face to those who accept evolution. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Agreed. I wouldn't object to a well-written article on physicalism, but this is just ridiculous. If on one hand, one can accept evolution without being an evolutionist, and on the other hand, being an evolutionist doesn't automatically lead one to the theory of evolution (any more than it leads one to any other scientific theory), what's with the name? Cheap shot, nothing more. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== I think not ==

This article appears to me to be an attemt to tease proponents of evolution. There is no such religion as "evolutionism". What exactly is the difference between what this page describes as evolutionism and atheism? (which is not a religion either). This article does not represent serious scholarship. I suggest that it be deleted. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is it teasing, or is it just unbiased, hard-to-hear fact? It is true that it is based in naturalism, there is no disputing that. So it is similar to atheism, maybe we should add that to the article. Atheism may be the denial of religion, but there is no such thing as a person without a worldview, it's impossible. Atheists have their atheist worldview. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 00:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::So what you are saying is that you are really talking about atheism. There is already a page on atheism. I am sure that you are welcome to post there if you have anything constructive to say. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::worldview = religion? I think that it is dangerous ground to suggest such a thing. Worldview is certainly affected by religious beliefs, however, to limit it to just this would be to utterly reject cultural influences and individual experience. Both of these are part of the perspective we call worldview. This page is also in violation of the Commandments #1 and #2, and should be fixed as such. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 01:00 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with saying "worldview" rather than religion. We Creationists like to apply religion to any ideology that is different from ours, almost to the same effect as the word secular or pagan, because we don't consider biblical Christianity a religion (atleast not on the same plane as others). But worldview is accurate and less divisive for this atmosphere. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 02:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I refer you to my remarks on the AFD page in relation to "worldviews". --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 02:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Evolutionism" is not a worldview at all. As far as I can tell it's nothing but a pejorative term created by creationists to imply that people believe in the theory of evolution simply because they already believed there is no god. The truth is that people believe the theory because they're convinced by the evidence. Darwin didn't set out to come up with a theory that wouldn't require divine intervention - he observed nature, and his observations led him to wonder how it got to be the way it is, and he developed the theory to explain it. --[[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is impossible to be convinced by the evidence that there is no God, the only option is to be convinced there is. The very definition of God is that He is outside science. Evolutionism is a worldview whether it's correct or incorrect, because it's how certain people view the world. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Um...what? The evidence doesn't have the slightest thing to do with whether there's a god.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Shocking, truly shocking. You don't have to be an atheist to know that evolution is fact. ''Exemplum gratis'': me. Can you prove otherwise, or are you going to continue to insult us all? And if you are, will you get better arguments then "the only option is to be convinced there is"? Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree that God is outside science. So doesn't that mean that the two are compatible? That the two must never conflict?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've modified this pending its deletion.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why is it shocking? I haven't said at all that the science is wrong, I'm just pointing out some philosophical things. Is that insulting? As far as the God argument, there is a difference between ''denying'' God, and being ''convinced'' that He doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that it is impossible to be ''convinced''. Convinced means you can prove that God does not exist, denying means that you don't believe He exists, whether He does or not. You have got the burden of proof my friend. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The entire thing is based on an extremely flawed perception of science and nitpicking on semantics. You'd apparently treat the phrase "I believe I'm right" as an expression of religious faith, but it's not. This is not about belief or faith. And implying religious statements from the scientific position is beyond insulting - it's ridiculous. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::"''I believe I'm right''": No, you're putting words in my mouth. I honestly believe there is plenty of sound evidence for creation. I don't have to have to base my beliefs in non-reality. "''And implying religious statements from the scientific position is beyond insulting''": Rather than just say it's insulting, why don't you tell me why? Counter my arguments, and not just with "insulting", or "wrong", etc. "Semantics": We need semantics. If you think my semantics are illogical, counter them with logic rather than just saying you don't like them. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess to put it in other terms, although there are arguments against it, ''Theistic Evolutionism'' is the bare minimum option. I'm not the only one that thinks these things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but no. Theistic Evolution is based on believing that Genesis is correct. There are TONS of Christians who believe in God and still think that Genesis is nothing but a nice story. "Being Christian" does not equal "taking the Bible literally". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There are definitely evolutionists that do not believe the bible at all, and still hold to their being a god of some sort. When I say Theistic Evolutionism, I mean any form of evolution that includes a god. About being a Christian, that's a totally different discussion. But to put it simply, if you don't take the Bible literally, than that opens up the possibility to throw out anything you don't like that it says. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::This article appears to be a rubuttal over my saying that evolution is not an -ism from the [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] page. I say here as I said there, recognizing that the evidence supports evolutionary theory in now way affects my world view. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm simply trying to include all the viewpoints. If it can be worded better, let me know how. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== It does not concern the scientific theory ==

Neither does the article linked to. And I continue to object strongly to this article. This is merely an attempt to strengthen the POV that evolution is both the foundation and the cause of a belief system. An attempt to make evolution a religion... which, of course, leads to a whole bunch of constitutional questions. I also find it amusing that the majority of the "controversy" section is the creationist response and that the pro-science sites at the bottom of the page all have their "Creationwiki" responses while the anti-science sites lack scientific responses. This article is a sham, top to bottom, and is only fit for deletion. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely correct. I had the same thought about the creationwiki responses. It would be different if it was someone other than creationists trying to claim that evolution is a religion, but it isn't.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Deletion ==
Evolutionism doesn't coincide with the Scientific Theory of Evolution, if it exists at all. The presentation of evolution as being opposed to the existence of god is incorrect. A scientist doesn't pursue evolution with the assumption that god does not exist. Instead, the supernatural and natural are kept separate in the scientific reasoning process. The deletion of the Scientific Theory of Evolution article is offensive to scientists and supporters of evolution (the vast majority of the world's population). Please restore this article. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (CST)

Delete! This is just pointless. The entire position of 'evolutionism' is nothing but a straw man attack on evolution, trying to falsely paint a scientific theory as a religion. - Suricou

:Nowhere does the article say the thing you are suggesting, to my knowledge. Please show some examples of what you mean and it can maybe be reworded. The Evolutionism article is important because it brings out some cultural perspectives. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 19:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "There is no God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea. Evolutionism comes before the Scientific Theory of Evolution. The theory is based on the worldview." The theory of evolution is completely separate from the worldview that there is no god (Atheism). Connecting these two like this is a misrepresentation of evolution. I believe there should be a separate article for the theory of evolution, instead of a redirect here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::I agree about the separate article, and it [[Theory of evolution|already exists]]. However, in that same section you cited, you missed this sentence: "Some proponents of the scientific theory of evolution reject the idea of a philosophy or worldview that guides their conclusions in scientific experimentation." That section does need to be fleshed out more, but it does acknowledge what you are saying as one opinion on the issue. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 19:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The theory of evolution is based on the worldview of natural science - the attempt to explain as much of the world as possible without resorting to supernatural intervention. There was no geneticsism prior to Mendel. There was no evolutionism prior to Darwin. These were people who saw something and then tried to explain it without an appeal to a higher power. The natural science worldview can be traced back to ancient Greece without difficulty.--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ymmotrojam, do you have any evidence that anyone who is a proponent of the theory of evolution ''does'' subscribe to the worldview that you describe?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Whatever your opinion is on whether a evolutionary scientist receives the revelation of a ''no God'' <strike>existence</strike>worldview before or after he examines science, the ''no God'' idea is still a way of viewing the world that affects how one lives. If there is a God, then we have worth and purpose. The existence of a God, according to the biblical definition of what He would be, would then preclude an absolute standard of right and wrong. Without the existence of God, it's up to mankind to make life into whatever he wants. In other words, yes, many people follow the ''no God'' worldview, whether they think they're getting that from science or before science. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'll take that as a no.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== On Faith ==

Our Faith article claims faith only exists in Christianity. This article contradicts that. The faith article is protected, and cannot be edited. One or the other is wrong. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think the Faith edit history makes it clear what is wrong. *checks* *sees that site founder was the one who made the Faith edit* And it's of course this article. *tries to keep a straight face* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Andy also claimed that the "Giant Impact Theory" was unfalsiable ''and'' falsified. I'm begining to understand what it means to be a "conservative" in America. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy's view on "conservative" and especially on science sometimes reminds me of this:
{{QuoteBox|''Doublethink'' means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of ''doublethink'' he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. ''Doublethink'' lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. George Orwell, ''Nineteen Eighty-Four''}}
:::It would certainly explain how he was able to use a source to offer an argument agains the GI Hypothesis while at the same time negating what it actually said. "There are no tests. And their results show that the theory is wrong!" --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The faith article has a ways to go, but I think it's currently trying to distinguish between the biblical type of faith and the worldy type. The biblical faith in God, refers not to blind faith, but a trust in His truth and promises outlined in scripture. Biblical Christianity says that it is faith alone in Christ's finished saving work ''alone'' that saves an individual. Every other way of thinking other than biblical thinking says one needs to earn a salvation or earn that "afterlife". The Bible explicitly says that one can never attain perfection or righteousness by one's own deeds and actions, or by human reason and intellect. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll quote the main page for you, when "Faith" had been prominently linked from there: '''"Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions."''' That sentence was on the main page for weeks or so and doesn't seem to be quite as diplomatic as your view. It's also the "version" most people here think of when one mentions the "Faith" article, I think. It even got picked up by a German news source.
:::::It should also be mentioned that the article has been locked for nearly one month now and is still locked (but it's just a "temporary lock because of vandalism"... sure...), and it got "clarified" only TODAY, just a few minutes after your interpretation.
:::::If you feel like it, check out the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&oldid=15845 last non-Aschlafly version] just before the protection. In my eyes, it had been a lot more balanced than the version we had during the month that followed. Still had a way to go, but not to bad for two days of editing. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:31, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well of course now we're getting into, what does he mean by that? He could mean, not that Christianity is the only belief that uses faith, but that Christianity is the only correct form of faith (because of the object of it's faith, which is Jesus Christ). I would say it's not good to have any faith that pleases oneself or gives a warm fuzzy feeling, but that one's faith be grounded in truth, and have the proper object of faith. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::When writing an encyclopedic entry, it's important to be clear in meaning. And this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedic entry. If an entry (and especially the main page intro I quoted) is phrased in a way that says "X" but actually maybe might read "Well, sorta X if we look at it this way, otherwise Y." if you approach it with the right assumptions, then it still says "X" to anybody who happens to have another interpretation. That's why we have the rules about truth, verifiability, and sourcing. Andy is a LAWYER. He should very well know to avoid phrases that have to be interpreted. And when the main page entry reads "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?", then I won't read it as "Did you know that Christianity may not actually be the only religion that has the concept of faith, but from my Christian point of view, it's the only correct one." (which can actually be just as insulting, come to think of it). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I've attributed the quote to Andy in the "doesn't" section. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think it's just a basic tautology - as in, "Christianity is the only religion which has a Christian form of faith." Blech.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I've left Andy's words there, quoted exactly. Do you think someone will complain about quote mining? ;) [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Advocacy for and against [[The theory of evolution]]==

The terms ''evolutionism'' and ''evolutionist'' have aroused the ire of partisans in the [[origins debate]]. Many profess to take offense at the use of these terms. I hope our article can explain the basis of their objections.

This encyclopedia might adopt these words as neutral terminology to aid discussion and description of advocacy about evolution.

I wonder if the term ''evolutionist'' has been used to mean, "You only '''believe''' in evolution, but you don't '''know''' it for a fact." Such a usage would cast "Evolutionists" as having the same standing as "Creationists". Anyone who feels that biologists have (or should have) superior standing might be affronted by this usage.

I see it merely as being less cumbersome than "a person who is quite sure that evolution is true". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, since no one objected I went ahead and revised the intro to explain the basis of their objections. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Changes needed: I deleted the line about "evolutionism" being coined by Darwin to undermine the Bible. It was uncited, and subjective. Read the Commandments.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I object to some of the terminology here. The article says, "The terms evolutionist and evolutionism carry a connotation of unthinking faith or pseudoscience". I don't think this is true at all. What pseudoscience ends with "-ism"? Then there is "the term Evolutionism is simply a false Creationist perception". I don't think that's right either. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I guess I was being too nice to the liberals. I fell into the habit because I work and live surrounded by them.

:Better to say that (Source A) objects to terms like ''evolutionism'' and ''evolutionist'' on the grounds that they connote, etc. Make it clear that the usage objections are one-sided. I haven't heard any evolutionist complain about the term ''anti-evolutionist''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:: because it's a daft term? we are more likely to use "unscientific", "ignorant" and the like? Anti-evolutionist is not used by anyone because the queen's english provides plenty of terms already. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 19:01, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Some evolutionists ''do'' object to the term (apart from Cgday here, who presumably does as well), although I'd probably put it more because they think it has the connotation of an unsubstantiated/unsubstantiatable belief. I don't use the word that way. I use it simply as a straightforward description of a person who accepts as true the proposition that evolution has occurred. I've encountered this on talk pages at Wikipedia, and written about it on my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Evolutionist.22 user page there], but despite me writing that over two years ago, no evolutionist has offered a better alternative. Instead, they tend to adopt the tactic of Cgday here, that ''anything'' that might possibly suggest in the slightest way that evolution is not absolute fact is totally unacceptable, and they'd rather insult (call us "ignorant") than admit that there might be any doubt about evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:: em no.. I'm just point out the words that someone who findings the theory of evolution is likely to use, they are far more likely to reach for the work ignorant than a mouthful like Anri-evolutionist. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 05:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Evolutionism as a [[worldview]]==

First of all, what's a worldview? We don't even have an article on that concept. Secondly, who '''says''' it's a worldview? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's an article the Ymmotrojam started for little reason. Ask him.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::To be clearer, this whole page is just an attempt to discredit evolution. It's fine with me if you just blank it. Why is this page worthwhile?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:25, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:Trying to say that "evolutionism" is a world view is like trying to say that Trekkie's like for their favourite show is a world view. The use of the word evolutionism is more often then not an attempt to portray the pro-Evolution side of the origins debate as a religion or philosophy. Some Creationists think that if they can show that "evolutionism" is really just a philosophy then they will be justified in their attempts to get their alternative origins theories taught in science classes, and this article attempts to conflate this idea of a philosphy with the actual theory of evolution. It is important to note in this article that only the creation/intelligent design side of the debate uses this term, and sometimes uses it in a pejorative fashion.
::That entire argument posted by Bytor (but not signed) is based on the presumption that evolution is ''not'' a worldview, but he fails to show that. I'll concede that it doesn't ''have'' to be a worldview, but I'll also argue that it ''can be'' a worldview/religion, or at least a component of one. Perhaps nobody has noticed the link I added, so I'll post the relevant content here. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. Some years later, however, he wrote:{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Quoting Ruse is misleading. I read his whole original article and it is clear he completely accepts BIOLOGICAL evolution. What he is against, however, is drawing moral or political precepts from evolution.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-17T04:18:21Z

Alloco1: Wikipedia DOES call Eritrea a one party state.

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-02T14:57:43Z

Alloco1: Wikipedia's entry JESUS H. CHRIST neutral; notes that it can be blasphemy.

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a pro-[[scientific method]] bias but a pro-[[naturalism]] bias. The scientific method actually makes no reference to an exclusive focus on the physical world. Psychologists use the scientific method, even when the thoughts, feelings and intentions they study are utterly invisible.

::The pretense that science consists only of the study of the physical world is a blatant fallacy. Science encompasses far more than just the [[physical science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::You are perhaps confusing "creationism" with Young Earth Creationism. Evolutionists often write as if they were unaware of the distinction between young earth and old earth beliefs. So I'll spell it out for you.

:::Young earth creationists limit the maximum age of the [[Earth]] to around 10,000 years, based on their faith in the [[Old Testament]]. Old Earth creationists generally accept the conclusion of geologists (and mainstream biologists) that the Earth is over 1 billion years old - and thus that [[fossils]] provide an accurate historical record of when the various species of life came into being (and sometimes went extinct, like dinosaurs).

:::Old Earth creationism is just as scientific in all respects as [[naturalistic evolution]]. It just doesn't limit causation to the physical plane, any more than archaeologists try to explain the [[Rosetta Stone]] by natural processes such as erosion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:14, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. Theistic evolutionists believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::*You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how long shall I have to wait until I see high-school textbooks drop the [[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] drawings, for example, though even many of Haeckel's contemporaries laughed at those?
:::::For that matter, the whole reason for such blistering political controversy--not to mention lawsuit after lawsuit--that we see today is the proposal to revise textbooks to remind people that just maybe [[Charles Darwin]] didn't have as full an understanding as his followers pretend that he had.
:::::As [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] pointed out above, your problem, which you share with people like Dawkins and Gould and Scott and others, is that you ''restrict'' science to the ''material'' world. Nothing exists except matter. The trouble is that matter can't explain everything, and you know it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sure. You also need some mathematics. But anyway, even if matter doesn't explain everything, the religious alternative explains even less. But as I already said before, the honest thing in these situations would be to admit that you simply don't know. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::You asked before why this issue keeps the people busy, and now you mention textbooks. Let me give my view on it. This whole discussion is not about the science of abiogensis and evolution, but it is part of the culture ware in the US, and in particular about who is calling the shots in US schools. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::For evolution to happen it is irrelevant how it began. As long as it is self-replicating. If humans would manage to bring life to mars, it would certainly evolve on Mars, even if humans are long gone. And if you want proof that life is self-replicating, go visit a farm.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Irrelevant? On the contrary, the beginnings of life are far more material (pardon the pun) and far more relevant than you would have us believe.
:::::::It took me awhile to understand what you meant by a self-replicating process. But now you have to show two things:
:::::::1. That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."
:::::::: It doesn't have to be one, it could be more than one. It happens to be the case that we only observe one type of life on earth, the one based on DNA. And hence the idea arose, that they all might have a common ancestor. But for evolution to happen you can have in principle multiple kinds of life competing. No problem. It just happens that in practice we don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:48, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::2. That one "kind" ''ever'' gave rise to another, radically different kind. Going back to those lectures I had, and again I have seen no updates worthy of the name: the evolutionistic paradigm that I was taught, stated that a [[gene]] is a mutated [[virus]], that [[mitochondria]] and [[chloroplast]]s were originally independent organisms, and that ''all species'' more complex than viruses (with the possible exception of sponges) derived from [[coelenterate]]s. All [[protist]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s--they all came from one kind, the coelenterates. Now ''that'' you can't show. And my proof? Evolutionists speak of "missing links"--hypothetical species intermediate in form between two species that are known. Guess what? ''The missing links are still missing''. Of course they are. You can't find a never-was. And none of your mathematical algorithms will find a single piece of tangible evidence to suggest that they ever existed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Sure, the mathematical foundation won't tell you where to look for missing links in biological evolution. So what? You mentioned yourself that probabilistic and stochastic explanations predict averages, and not particulars. But it will tell you that the missing links that creationist are looking for, something like half cow half man, doesn't exist. This kind of missing link is nothing but a creationist strawman. It also tells you that at no stage the successor was radically different. It tell you that you make best progress if the changes are moderate. And some of the missing links that science was looking for they did find. Do you really want to tell me that you faith depends on such a benign event as a person digging up a fossil in Canada that is somewhere in-between land and sea mammal? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Well then, tell me this: if increased energy alone were sufficient to reduce entropy in another part of the universe, then why couldn't a [[tornado]] rip through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747? And that's no joke. See Perloff, James, ''Tornado in a Junkyard: the Relentless Myth of Darwinism'', Refuge Books, 1999. ISBN 0966816005.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: This is the good old creationist argument from improbability. Which, confuses random walks again with evolution. And also claims that science beliefs that life came about in an event similar to your tornado. Which it doesn't. To give your example some credit, is shows indeed that increased energy alone is not sufficient for life to emerge. Otherwise the universe would be run over by life. But the amounts of energy consumed by life to sustain itself is sufficient to disprove the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. And that was the contested point.[[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::What you say is that they aren't Christains. That's cool, but now I am faced with to kinds of Christians, and one kind of them claims that the other is dishonest about their beliefs. You might be right about their dishonesty, but I don't see why I should choose either side.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:19, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Now ''I'' have to admit that "why you should choose" is beyond the scope of this page. But it's a matter of supreme importance to each and every living soul, because the eternal destiny of an unsaved soul is a horror that I wouldn't wish on my worst earthly enemy. [[Jesus Christ]] came to earth to pay, in full, the penalty for [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]]. There's just one catch, though--if you don't believe in [[God]] and don't believe in sin, then...!--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::So, essentially you believe not because you've got arguments, but because you are scared by torture, pain, and hellfire? This is a reasonable position if you live in North Korea. Faced with a deity who punishes people for all kinds of reason know and unknown, and who is much smarter than us, I think it is a folly to try to deceive him and pretend to believe. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::I amazed that you didn't know about self-replicating processes, and I'm glad that I could provide you with this new insight. And if you want to learn more, I pointed you to a handbook. I am more than happy to write an essay, if you promise me to first read the handbook.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:19, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::How odd--in the Sixties, scientism confidently expected to find all the answers, that it was just a matter of time. The broader name for this kind of thinking was [[modernism]]. Now we have [[postmodernism]], which is the cop-out of all time. Don't cop out on me, Order--that would be unworthy of you.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sure, I am skeptical, because there might be problems that are to big for humans to comprehend. That aside, you seem to think that abiogensis means that that somewhere and at sometime something arose from nothing? Science always explains something new by a material process, and none of its attempts to explain abiogenesis said that something came from nothing. This might be limiting, but that are the rules of the game. And how does intelligence solve this anyway? I have seen many intelligent people, but regardless of how intelligent they were, few were able to create matter and molecules from nothing. Maybe you can explain, how intelligence, without the use of tools and existing material, can create something material? Order 07:07, 1 October 2007
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:You did forget a number of things, chief among which is that I am under Divine orders, per {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=28|verses=19-20}}, to spread the Truth and oppose error and falsehood wheresoever I find it.
:About those "algorithms"--a commentator named Jim Manzi mentioned them in an essay published in the current issue of ''National Review''. He states that if those algorithms work at all, then they show that, because evolution is not random after all, one cannot assert ''a priori'' that [[God]] does not direct it. Fine, except for one crucial element that we never even considered: time. Evolution, as you currently define it, takes far more time than the earth has been around.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::I was telling you all the time that evolution wasn't random. Glad that you finally got it. And if you would have read the literature on the algorithm, you would have noticed that there a faster optimization algorithms around. This observation isn't exactly news. Evolution itself is the process without a director. But you can, as theistic evolutionists and IDers do, claim that a creator at some places stepped in and accelerated the process. But unless you specify where, when and how this creator did it, you still didn't explain anything, but you seek refuge with your creator in some unspecified unknowns. Which is even more vague than hiding in some known unknowns, like abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Terry, hi, new user here. So you do realize that that argument is circular?
#Evolution would disprove special creation.
#However, evolution disproves special creation, which is true.
#Ergo, evolution is false.
It's either circular, or you're making one huge assumption. You're aware of this?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:35, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Evolution doesn't disprove anything, because no one has proved evolution. No one seems able even to define it. How do ''you'' define it? If someone defines it as change that can happen to a species over time, then evolution says nothing about special origin. But you just implied that evolution ''implies'' that all species derive from one, whose origin remains a mystery. Which is it?
:Also, I repudiate the charge of [[circular reasoning]]. I know about how long the [[earth]] has existed, and it's not the billions of years that would be required.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution doesn't imply that all came from one? Who claims that? Didn't I say the opposite. It has just been observed to be the case that all life we know is DNA based. This discussion start to become repetitive. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure you do "know" that. How?

Moving on, evolution is, like you said, the change over time between and among species. It disproves ''special'' creation (special, meaning, each species individually), but you're quite right in that it doesn't imply abiogenesis... evolution does not speak itself to the origin of that first speck of life. Rather, it assumes it's there. So I've defined it.

Also, I feel that some of the problem might be from the false dichotomy created by creationary debaters, who distinguish between "macro-" and "micro-" evolution, even though one implies the other. And the punctuated equilibrium/gradualism debate, which concerns the rate of instant acceleration (think of it as the second & third derivatives of evolutionary change), has also been misconstrued by the same, in a [[deceit|deceitful]] attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. I'd be happy to explain both of these in more detail if it clears up your definition; I feel like many of the "points" creationary debaters think they have are actually either misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, or deliberate deceit created in an attempt to delude the public, and undermine confidence in science.

As a final note, of course evolution is never "proven." No scientific theory is ever "proven," since new evidence will always emerge to require adaptation of theories. All that we can ask is that a scientific theory reflect the present evidence, and contemplate the inclusion of future evidence... a test which evolution passes with flying colors.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 23:44, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:The "wrap up" was intended to continue the discussion at an appropriate place. Sorry, that I forgot to mention that you act under divine orders. The rest of you argument is captured by my point that you think that science has to explain everything, otherwise atheism falters. I still think that this nothing more than a strawman. The discussion with you is cumbersome, since keep arguing against positions that you think think I should take, but which I don't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Order, from looking at your other edits (which I admire) I think we're on the same page, and I just want to make sure that the "you" you're debating isn't me, but is in fact TerryH :-). Is that right? Also, hello!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:25, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

My last remarks was intended to be general in nature, and addressed mainly Terry. I can't see any reason to continue a discussion in which I repeatedly hammered the point that evolution isn't random, to arrive a point where Terry says "Gotcha, you admitted that evolution isn't random". Hence, a second attempt to wrap up. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:49, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
===Second attempt to wrap up ===

My second summary of where we stand is
* You believe that science claims to explain everything, which it doesn't. I claim that science knows that that it doesn't explain everything, so i don't see the problem.
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism is about the rejection of religious beliefs, and not about some scientific argument.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". I think that "God" as an answer doesn't address any of the unsolved scientific questions.
* You believe to be are under divine order. I believe that this argument from authority doesn't make your claims any stronger.

If you want to convince me, you shouldn't point to gaps in my knowledge; they are plenty. I do not even know the complete science of riding a bicycle. Pointing out more unknowns doesn't really undermine my position.

I might be wrong, but I get the impression that you think that your alternative explains everything. Rather than pointing at my lack of knowledge, you should for a start explain why it is possible to bicycle, or to tackle another partly unsolved problem, what causes lightning. But we should do it in the articles on [[Bicycles]] and [[Lightning]]. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:49, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

All right, [[User:Order|Order]] and [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]], here is ''my'' summary of this exercise in talking at each other:

MichaelS has just set forth every reason why I am unalterably opposed to evolution. To him (and, I presume, to Order), nothing will suffice except a declaration that change ''within'' species implies change ''from species to species'' and that ''[[God]] is not necessary'' to the process in any manner whatsoever. So much for grand attempts at compromise. I invite everyone to read those edits and judge for him/herself.

Yes, I know how long the earth has been around. The [[Bible]] states in detail how long certain men lived, and how old they were when they had sons. Add it all up and you get about 6,010 years. I have discussed [[Biblical chronology dispute|here]] the three points of scholarly dispute that might make a difference, perhaps, of a hundred or so years either way. Not millions of years, as evolutionists demand.

Very well, then. This discussion is at an end--and I hope that all attempts from my side at compromise will now come to an end, because they are absolutely futile.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.
:::::: I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberal philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: At least 95% of [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]]. You'd be hard-pressed to identify counterexamples. It's a [[deceit]] to describe what a [[liberal]] is and to leave that out, as [[Wikipedia]] does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: Read the article. Wikipedia doesn't leave it out. Read the whole article. Wikipedia is not hiding the information that the Democratic party in America generally supports state-funded abortion, but to state that "liberals believe such-and-such" or "Republicans believe such-and-such" is labelling and unfair. Again, I know many liberals (even university professors) who do not support abortion.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I read the article, and Wikipedia leaves out both. And I doubt you know any [[liberals]] who don't support censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]]. I'm skeptical that you know [[liberals]] who are university professors who oppose legalized [[abortion]]. Post their names and let's see if they've stated that position publicly. I doubt it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:22, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Archibald, you are dodging the point, whether due to misunderstanding or as a conscious debating tactic only you can say. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't have a [[Liberal]] article. It thus seemingly denies the very existence of liberals.

Your tangent about the lack of perfect unity among liberals is irrelevant. They still exist, just as for example Creationists still exist, despite an almost perfectly even division into Young Earth & Old Earth factions.

Your other tangent about the historical changes in the meaning of the term ''liberal'' is also irrelevant. You surely know that Mr. Schlafly is talking chiefly about contemporary U.S. liberals.

A comprehensive article on [[Liberal]]s would address the scope and breadth of meaning. It would also assure even liberals like you that you exist! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:02, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Pro-life

2007-09-30T22:17:26Z

Alloco1:

Maybe it should be noted that some so-called "pro-lifers" kill doctors. Very in favour of life, these pro-lifers.

----

Could someone please explain ''why'' the reason for the term "pro-life" is "liberal bias"? Especially when said reason (life begins at conception) is surely in accordiace with Conservapedia thinking?
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 11:39, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The claim that the Democratic party wishes to have no legal restrictions placed on abortion is just plain wrong. [[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 18:17, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-09-27T16:34:31Z

Alloco1: /* What the hell? */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Exactly ''where'' does God say that he hates homosexuals? He refers to it as 'abomination' in Leviticus...but then again, the Bible also uses the same term to refer to the eating of shellfish.--[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned "over 30 admonishments against homosexuality". Passages, please. [[User:Ilikepie|Ilikepie]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality. Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT

:Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You are a piece of work. I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in. But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What would you know Jack? With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).

::::You know, that's funny...I'm bi, and I've never been involved in intercourse with more than one person. Fancy that. --[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative

2007-09-24T01:24:27Z

Alloco1: article should discuss Conservative philosophy

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps because "taking" money that you haven't earned is theft? Or the government doing it is Communism? And, please get a clue before trolling here! All of your complaints were instituted by the Congress of the United States, not George Bush. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::That post was funny. I think the user was a conservative parodist. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Why not just note [[Ronald Reagan]] as a conservative and leave it at that? [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 00:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is basically faulty since it's simply a laundry list of (supposedly)conservative policy positions with no attempt at discussing or analyzing the philosophy behind all of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 21:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-09-21T04:43:39Z

Alloco1: /* Fascinating... */

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Uneditable?? ==
I understand the need to monitor this "conservi" because of arguments, but there should be a way to get new ideas into a topic. So I commented that there is no evidence for intelligent design (at least in the section called "evidence"). It's a proposition or a belief, not a conveyance of facts. Show me a fact and I'll concede to "evidence," but that's not what is here. Opinions are here (see Evidence --> Support below). It's ok to believe in ID over evolution, but don't confuse your readers by calling a belief "fact." You're sending them backwards a step in their thinking; misleading them. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 18:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Evidence --> Support ==
This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.

However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic [[argument from ignorance]] and offers (at best) support. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Arguments ==

"obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--[[User:Propro|Propro]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years.

We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." [[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology.

Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no?

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist vs. Scientists ==
Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)

::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)

::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart.
:::*Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't.
:::*Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?
:::*'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)

==Statements and Analogies==
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Behe==

Where it says:

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's.

We should probably specify which book of Behe's this is. There's a reference to Darwin's Black Box in the next sentence, but it's not clear in context whether it's that book or not, and if I remember correctly, that may not have been his first book. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please add a sentence to the section on opposition: ==

I would like to add a sentence to opposition:

:Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, after Richard von Sternberg managed the peer review process and published a paper by Intelligent Design researcher [[Stephen C. Meyer]], scietists at the Smithsonian Institution retaliated in what is known as the [[Smithsonian Controversy]].

Of course, the sentece could be reworked as necessary.[[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 22:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== List is not needed given category ==

Please change '''List of Intelligent Design Theorists''' to [[:Category:Intelligent design theorists]] (please look at source to see proper way to link). The list page is only linked from this page. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is an added help to the article and no harm is done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::: The category has all the information the list does, and is updated automatically as new items are added to the category. The list requires manual updates. If that page (too) becomes protected, then all the work needs to be done by sysops. As it is, the list page has two links on it, making it rather, well, useless. If nothing else, the link to the category should be provided in addition to the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== I just came from wiki ==

I cannot believe how biased their ID article is. And I am not a conservative. However in many areas this site is much more accurate. [[User:ProtoCat|ProtoCat]] 12:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I just came from there too and it gives a FULL discussion of ID and the issues surrounding it.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:39, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fascinating... ==
Apparently, there are [http://www.caidweb.org/blog/ conservatives against intelligent design]. Who knew? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Not all conservatives are willing to ignore or attempt to discredit things we seen as being anti-conservative. I don't see how so many people seem to view evolution as liberal and anti-christian. There are plenty of conservative christians who recognize the significance of evolution and realize that it does not go against their beliefs. I learned evolution in a Catholic school and somehow have managed to keep my faith and remain a Christian. --[[User:TheGoodSociety|UPOD]] 13:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

My wife remembers being tought about evolution by a nun(who didn't bat an eye) in a Catholic school in Colombia.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-09-21T04:39:58Z

Alloco1: I just came from wiki too

Don Quixote

2007-04-01T20:54:31Z

Alloco1: Don Quijote in modern Spanish)

'''Don Quixote'''(Don Quijote in modern Spanish) is a tragi-comic novel by [[Miguel Cervantes]], written in two parts in the late 16th and early 17 century and often considered one of the greatest of all time.

Its protagonist is a minor aristocrat who has read rather rather too many books of [[chivalry]] and imagines himself a knight battling supernatural and mythological beings in a mundane environment where they simply do not exist.

The humour derives from his ability to contort everything he sees to a demented worldview based on silly books - however it is a measure of Cervantes' skill as an author that we come to sympathise with Don Quixote more than those who mock him, as much as the latter may be correct.

Talk:Single payer

2007-03-31T20:53:29Z

Alloco1: New page: Maybe the Swiss system is accepted because EVERYONE is covered. In the US, many go uncovered.~~~~

Maybe the Swiss system is accepted because EVERYONE is covered. In the US, many go uncovered.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 16:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

2007-03-17T16:02:27Z

Alloco1: Correction of Avellaneda's name; how Don Quixote spelled in modern Spanish; punctuation

Miguel De Cervantes Saaverda, most commonly referred to simply as Cervantes, lived from 1547-1616 in [[Spain]]. He spent his childhood fleeing with his family from his father's creditors and much of his adolescence in jail. He fought in war from 1571-1575 under [[Cardinal Nuncio Acquaviva]], and, after being captured on his trip home from war, was a prisoner of pirates from 1575-1580 when [[Spain]] paid ransom for his return.

Immediately after returning home penniless, Cervantes spent four years as a playwright to support himself, writing as many as 30 unsuccessful plays. After becoming married, he became a food provisioner for the Spanish navy to support the increased burden of feeding another person The occupation was rife with opportunity for accounting fraud. Cervantes found himself at ends with the Treasury Department many times during his years as a food provisioner, and found himself in jail as many times because of it.

During Cervantes' time in jail, he wrote the first half of one of the most famous literary works in world history in 1605. [[Don Quixote]](Don Quijote in modern Spanish). [[Don Quixote]] became so popular that it went through ten editions from 1605-1615, and inspired fan-written sequels, most notably that of [[Alonzo Fernandez de Avellaneda]], whose sequel is believed to have inspired Cervantes to write the second half of [[Don Quixote]] in 1615.

Cervantes died on April 23, 1615, the same day as [[William Shakespeare]].
It was once a popular belief that Shakespeare was in fact a [[pen name]] of Cervantes, but this idea was discredited in the 19th century, due to, among other reasons, a letter that surfaced indicating that Cervantes had a rather poor grasp of the [[English]] language.

Scopes Trial

2007-03-17T15:49:00Z

Alloco1: Removed opinionated paragraph

The trial in 1925 of John Scopes for teaching evolution in Tennessee was a defeat of Darwinism. The [[ACLU]] and liberal trial lawyer Clarence Darrow brought the Scopes case in the hopes of winning a public relations and legal victory, but in fact [[William Jennings Bryan]] decisively beat them.

The [[ACLU]] challenged a Tennessee statute, the Butler Act, that imposed a fine for teaching in public school that man descended from more primitive life forms. The statute did not prohibit teaching most aspects of evolution. The textbook at issue in the case taught eugenics, including that man supposedly descended from lower life forms and that some racial groups had evolved to more advanced levels than others.

The textbook also featured the fraudulent [[Piltdown Man]]. At the time, Darwinists claimed that this and eugenics were indisputable science to be taught to students. The Hollywood version heaped mockery on any argument that teaching evolution could be socially harmful.

In the real trial, Bryan quoted for the court how Darrow had previously claimed that murder defendants Leopold and Loeb were driven to crime by what they were taught, which was Nietzche's atheistic philosophy. Bryan quoted Darrow as saying that "Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life on it? ... The university would be more to blame than he is. ... Your honor, it is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."

Bryan was an extraordinary speaker, recognized to be among the best in American history. Darrow wanted to prevent Bryan from making a persuasive closing argument to the jury, and Darrow searched for another way to try to score points for his side.

So Darrow stunned the court by requesting to cross-exam Bryan, in the hope that Bryan, like many attorneys, would be a poor witness. Darrow's attempt was unprecedented, because trial attorneys almost never take the witness stand in their own cases. Bryan agreed only on the condition that he could cross-examine Darrow. Based on that agreement, Bryan took the witness stand.

A witness in a trial is always at a disadvantage, because he can only answer questions that are posed by a hostile adversary. Attorneys are particularly vulnerable, because their knowledge of the law and tendency to speak in legalese hinder their performance.

Darrow undoubtedly thought that he could turn Bryan into the proverbial buffoon that liberals wanted. As the transcript reveals, however, Bryan got the better of his accuser. Bryan repeatedly turned the tables on Darrow's questions, which the large courtroom audience found amusing at Darrow's expense. Here is a sample:<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm</ref>

Bryan--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.
Judge--All right.
(Applause in audience.)
…
Bryan--Those [the audience] are the people whom you insult.
Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion.
....
Darrow: Wait until you get to me [N.B. this apparently refers to Darrow's agreement to be a witness]. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?
Bryan --No.
Darrow--Have you ever tried to find out?
Bryan--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter in audience.)
Darrow--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?
Bryan--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.
Darrow--Where have you lived all your life?
Bryan--Not near you. (Laughter and applause in audience.)

Darrow tried again and again to trap Bryan, but struck out each time. A later exchange ended, once again, with the audience laughing at Darrow:

Darrow--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?
Bryan--I believe that.
Darrow--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?
Bryan--No, sir.
Darrow--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?
Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).

Darrow ended his cross-examination weaker than when he began -- an enormous defeat for any trial attorney.

The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But Darrow stunned the public by giving up rather than upholding his end of the bargain. Darrow took the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes. To save his own skin, Darrow handed over his client!

The jury gave Darrow exactly what he requested: it found Scopes guilty. His fine was eliminated on a technicality on appeal.

----

Hollywood has little regard for the truth. Its movie version ''Inherit the Wind'' changed everyone's name, thereby preventing libel suits, and changed the facts in order to ridicule religious belief. It featured the popular Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, and even garnered a few Academy Award nominations.

The movie features an angry mob trying to lynch a jailed teacher; in fact, the ACLU ran advertisements with offers to pay expenses for a teacher to volunteer for the case, and Scopes was never jailed and never paid even a fine.

The movie portrayed the former Secretary of State Bryan as a complete buffoon. In fact, as shown above, Bryan beat Darrow in the courtroom so convincingly that Darrow surrendered, breaking his own promise to testify. Even the New York Times article the next day reflected surprise at Darrow's abrupt capitulation.

----

Bryan, a 65-year-old diabetic lacking in modern treatments, died peacefully in his sleep five days after the conclusion of the Scopes trial. Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial was a fitting end to a principled, illustrious career.<ref> http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/bryan.html</ref> Scopes was only fined $500 for his actions.

In 1967, Tennessee repealed the Butler Act, and in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 that such bans on teaching are unconstitutional because they are primarily religious in cause.

'''Sources:''' <references/>

Talk:National Cancer Institute on Abortion

2007-03-16T23:30:50Z

Alloco1: Shows that a woman should have an abortion as soon as possible after pregnancy.

What this article clearly shows (probably unintentionally) that the earlier a woman has an abortion (certainly by the end of the first trimester), the less chance she has of developing breast cancer. In short, the right-to-lifers, by trying to put delaying tactics in place, are increasing women's risk of getting breast cancer. 19:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

World History Lecture Two

2007-03-16T22:45:01Z

Alloco1: correction: llama a relative of the camel; a beast of burden

[[World History Lecture One|1]]-[[World History Lecture Two|2]]-[[World History Lecture Three|3]]-[[World History Lecture Four|4]]-[[World History Lecture Five|5]]-[[World History Lecture Six|6]]-[[World History Lecture Seven|7]]-[[World History Lecture Eight|8]]-[[World History Lecture Nine|9]]-[[World History Lecture Ten|10]]-[[World History Lecture Eleven|11]]-[[World History Lecture Twelve|12]]-[[World History Lecture Thirteen|13]]-[[World History Lecture Fourteen|14]]

World History

Second Lecture – Ancient History

Instructor, Andy Schlafly

== Introduction ==

Last week we addressed the major early ancient cultures: Mesopotamia and Egypt. Things become more interesting this week as we begin to address the “classical” period of world history: 1000 B.C. to A.D. 500. During this period, five different regions of the world had civilizations that advanced the frontiers of knowledge, government and the arts. Most of them developed independently of each other, since there was very little communication across long distances in the ancient world.

The five “classical” civilizations were India, China, Greece, Rome and, to a lesser extent, the Americas (in what is now Mexico and South America). This week we learn about classical Greece.

== Language ==

The study of the development of language is a fascinating aspect of World history. Language is extremely important to the progress and survival of a society. Peoples who only had primitive languages were easily conquered by groups that had more powerful languages. Language expresses and communicates ideas: it is difficult, if not impossible, to think about and communicate powerful ideas without language to express them.

The roots of all languages are in the basic aspects of life, such as the observation of tangible things like animals and food. But much more is needed to express ideas about what is not seen, such as religious concepts. Christianity could not develop and spread without a language capable of communicating its concepts. Had Christ come into this world in 2000 or 1000 B.C., would there have been a language powerful enough to express His ideas? Probably not. An example is the “Holy Spirit.” Few languages can express what is really meant by this. The Greek words “pneuma” (wind or breath) and “paraclete” (advocate or one who consoles) are what the Gospel of John uses, and those words capture the driving force of the Holy Spirit. The English word “spirit” is not even powerful enough to express what Jesus meant. Most languages in the world have smaller vocabularies than English, and have even greater difficulty capturing the essence of what we call the “Holy Spirit.”

Another example is the last utterance on the cross by Jesus, typically translated as “it is finished” (John 19:30 (King James Version)). But the actual Greek term was used in commerce at the time to mean “paid in full.” So a better translation would be “it is accomplished,” but even that does not fully capture the concept of redemption of the sin that was outstanding. Check your Bible to see how it translates John 19:30.

Recall that the language of Mesopotamia was cuneiform, based on wedge-like characters. But in the 1000s B.C., and perhaps earlier, a marvelous new form of language developed among the traders on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, where Lebanon is today. The Phoenicians lived there and established towns such as Byblos, a religious center after which the Bible is named because the town exported papyrus. The Phoenicians had ports and sea-traders would pick up exports such as fine linen, cedar, pine wood, dyed cloth, wine, glass, salt, dried fish, and embroideries. The Phoenicians traded with the Hebrews, who used the cedars of Lebanon to build Solomon’s temple. Colonies of the Phoenicians included Tyre, Sidon and, along the coast of Northern Africa, Carthage. Carthage later became powerful enough to compete with Rome. The Assyrian empire, which was the world’s first real empire, invaded the Phoenicians in the 500s B.C., causing them to collapse.

The new language developed by the Phoenicians to facilitate their trading was based on a new alphabet of 22 letters. All Western alphabets, such as English and French and Italian and Greek and Latin, are based on this Phoenician alphabet. This was one of the greatest advances in the history of mankind, perhaps as great as the invention of the wheel, because now language could begin to describe powerful concepts and abstract ideas. This laid the foundation for the accomplishments of Ancient Greece, which in turn laid the foundation for the teaching and spread of Christianity.

== Ancient Greece ==

=== Introduction ===

Greece was the most significant ancient civilization, and perhaps the greatest of all time. Intellectually, politically and militarily, ancient Greece had it all. Their achievements are even more remarkable without the benefit of Christianity, which came hundreds of years later. In many ways Greek culture laid the groundwork for Christianity to spread centuries later.

There were two basic reasons for the Greek success: language and political structure. The Greeks developed a complete alphabet that facilitated the expression of powerful ideas. The Greeks also developed a democracy-based political structure that ensured self-government and freedom for its citizens, thereby enabling productive work to flourish.

In terms of timing, from 3000 to 1000 B.C. Greece was not as successful or influential as the other ancient cultures. The Dorians, who were tribes speaking the Doric dialect of Greek, settled Greece between 1100 and 1000 B.C. They had a military ruling class that oppressed the local people, and they retained this rule by an aristocracy in Sparta and Crete even after the Greeks established democracy in Athens. The simplest form of Greek architecture, consisting of a straight column without any artistic trim at the top, was created by the Dorians and is known as the Doric order.

The beginning of the ancient or classical Greece was around 750 B.C., and its peak was 500-336 B.C. when Greece consisted of many small city-states, each comprised a city and surrounding countryside.

Why is ancient or classical Greece dated from about 750 B.C.? After all, the Greeks probably migrated southward into the Greek peninsula as early as about 1600 B.C. But from 1600 to 1100 B.C. was a period known as Mycenaean Greece, when progress was slow. Then from 1100 to 800 B.C. were the dark ages, from which little survived. The momentous event that heralded ancient or classical Greece was the first Olympic Games in 776 B.C. This played a unifying role for the culture, being held every four years for nearly 1000 years.

Greece itself thrived for hundreds of years, until Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C. After that historians refer to the culture as Hellenistic Greece, because it extended far and wide, even to where Jesus would teach near Jerusalem. Ultimately the Roman empire conquered Greece in 146 B.C. The Olympic games declined and disappeared but were restarted in A.D. 1896 and occur every four years today.

In about 800 B.C. the Greeks formed their alphabet by borrowing from the Phoenician alphabet and adding vowels to it. A written record then appears. Greece divided itself into many small self-governing communities as required by Greek geography. There every region is separated from its neighbors by water or mountain ranges.

Magnificent Greek literature began almost as soon as the Phoenician alphabet became the standard. Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey in the 800s or 700s B.C., and they remain great works of literature to this day. They describe adventures arising from the mythical “Trojan War” caused by the Greek gods, which included the famous gift of a “Trojan horse” to fool the enemy. In our internet era, a “Trojan horse” is a program or download that looks helpful, but actually contains a harmful computer virus. Greek mythology remains a powerful influence to this day, as the names for gods have inspired many common terms today, such as “Achilles heel”, “Amazon”, “atlas” and “titans”. Some would say that modern sports heroes or media figures are appealing to the public in the same way as Greek mythological gods were nearly 3000 years ago.

Poetry developed. Aesop’s Fables were written in the 600s B.C., containing popular insights repeated to this day. For example, the term “sour grapes” applies to someone who complains after he loses, based on Aesop’s fable about the fox unable to reach grapes. Aesop was smart enough to know that foxes are the only canines that like grapes.

Aristocrats who owned land ruled the early Athenian government, and “archons” were elected officials who made the law. Tyrants rose to power in the 600s B.C. The tyrants were primarily rich upstarts who illegally took over the government by violent means and catered to the lower classes to maintain popularity. Athens was ruled by a series of tyrants leading to a reformer named Solon who allowed most “citizens” (males descended from citizens) to vote. Solon also prohibited debtors’ prison, something allowed even in the early United States. Draco was another “reformer” who wrote such strict laws that the negative term “draconian laws” is used to today to criticize overly rigid rules. Other tyrants included Pisistratus (transferred estates from the nobles to the peasants and started building projects to create jobs) and Cleistenes (created the democratic Council of 500 and promoted freedom of speech). Cleisthenes is also believed to have founded “ostracism”, a system by which any citizen believed to have too much power by other citizens could be voted into exile for ten years, or “ostracized”.

By the 500s B.C. (6th century), Hellas had become a culture larger than the geographical area of Greece. The basic political unit was the city, which in Greek is called the “polis” (PAH-lus). The plural of “polis”, to express many cities, is “poleis” (PAH-lace). Each polis was made up of a city surrounded by a countryside. From that root we obtained our word “politics”. Over 200 Greek city-states arose in the Greek landscape and geography, which has many hills and valleys well-suited to separate city-states. The unsuitability of the Greek terrain for farming encouraged more trade.

Several important cities arose: Athens, Corinth, Sparta and Thebes. Athens and Corinth were powerful economically, controlling maritime and mercantile trade. Athens and Sparta were powerful militarily, and were rivals of each other for a long time.

The large cities dominated the areas around them. Sparta, for example, exercised influence over the other cities of the Peloponnese. It was also allied with Corinth and Thebes. Athens instituted a semi-constitutional system of government run by aristocrats, most notably Pisistratus and his sons.

Ultimately the Pisistratids lost power, and the world’s first democracy was established instead in 500 B.C. The powerful body became an assembly open to all (male) citizens.

The city-states were remarkable because they adopted a form of democracy that inspired our Constitution: citizens elected representatives who would then make decisions for everyone. But there was only a legislature in Athens, rather than the separation of powers that is unique to our Constitution. Also, not all Greek males in Athens were citizens. The city-state of Athens had 225,000 residents at its peak, but only 30% of the males were citizens. Males born to families with large incomes became citizens. Still, Athens is considered to have invented “democracy”, and its residents felt an allegiance to the state because of this.

Athens also had a direct democracy: every citizen (Athenian adult males) could propose laws and participate in their consideration and approval. Nobles served as judges to interpret the law, but there was a right to appeal and citizens served as jurors for trials in court.

Democratic Athens’ main rival was the city-state of Sparta, which was not a democracy. Instead, Sparta was a military culture based on high military discipline. Parents were forced to let their male children leave the house at age seven and receive training at a strict military camp—if the boys were lucky enough to make it to the age of seven, that is. The Spartans had a cruel practice by which all male babies were examined by community leaders immediately after birth. If the child appeared weak or deformed in any way, he was taken into a remote area and left to die from exposure or wild animals. The Spartans did want any member of their military to be anything less than 100% fit.

There were rigid social class structures in Sparta. The aristocrats, called the “spartiates,” were people descended from the Dorian invaders of the second century. The second class of citizens, called “perioeci”, consisted of landowners, artisans, and traders. They were primarily relatives of the natives who had lived in the region before the Dorians conquered it. The third class was comprised of conquered people who were basically serfs and were known as “helots”, and lastly there were slaves in Sparta—usually prisoners of war. The last two classes did not enjoy the rights of citizens. At times it was even legal for citizens to kill the non-citizens (the helots) to reduce population!

The helots did the farming and were 4/5ths of the overall population. The Spartans were not the brightest people in the world: they forbade the use of gold and silver for money, and instead used heavy iron bars as money. For most Greek city-states, trade consisted of making olive oil and wine and exchanging it with surrounding regions to obtain timber and grain in return.

=== Persia and the Persian Wars (500-479 B.C.) ===

Nothing unites two rivals as well as a common enemy. In the 400s B.C. Athens and Sparta had a common enemy: the Persian empire, located where Iran is today.

In 530 B.C., the Persian empire formed under a powerful ruler named Cyrus, who established the Achaemenid dynasty. He conquered the Medes and established trade routes to India and the Mediterranean. In 525 B.C., Cyrus’s son Cambyses expanded the empire further to Egypt and parts of Arabia. He established loyal governors in distant lands known as “satraps”, who were carefully watched by the King’s Eyes and Ears to prevent any rebellions. The distant lands sent taxes and soldiers to the king; in return the king protected them and allowed local customs and traditions to continue (most other empires harshly suppressed local customs). The Persian empire founded their own religion called Zoroastrainaism, which described life as a struggle between good and evil in the expectation that good would ultimately prevail. Its sacred text was called “Avesta”.

The greatest Persian ruler was Darius I, who was in power for nearly 40 years (521-486 B.C.). He expanded his empire to the coast of North Africa and Macedonia, and established a capital at Persepolis. He introduced a currency (coins) for trade, imposed a common calendar, and built the 1,600 mile Royal Road across the Middle East. Mail was carried by couriers on the Royal Road, and it was a Greek historian (not the U.S. Postal Service) who described the couriers like this: “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stop these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”

Persian King Cyrus conquered the Ionian Greek city-states on the western shore of Asia Minor in 546 B.C., but in 499 B.C. Athens encouraged support for a revolution against the Persian empire, coming to the aid of the Ionian city-states when they revolted against their Persian masters. Other Greek city-states also helped the Ionian city-states.

Furious, Darius suppressed the revolution and to punish Athens, in 490 B.C. he brought his army to the plains of Marathon, just north of Athens and prepared to invade the rich city-state. Outnumbered ten to one by the Persians, the Athenians sent an athlete named Philippides to run 150 miles to Sparta in an attempt to enlist the aid of the Spartans. Ironically, the Spartans—with their military-obsessed society—refused to come, being in the middle of a festival! However, Athens proved strong enough to defeat the mighty Persians on her own and won a staggering victory on the plains of Marathon. To this day, runners participate in the “marathon” in imitation of the remarkable athlete Philippides.

Xerxes, who had succeeded Darius, tried again in 480 B.C. to defeat Greece. This time he had a massive army of 200,000 Persians and a strong navy. He marched the army to a narrow pass in the mountains at Thermopylae. But he was met by 300 Spartans, the best soldiers in the world, and they gave their lives to delay the Persians at the pass. Ultimately the Persians broke through the mountains using an alternate route given to them by a Greek traitor and conquered and ransacked (“sacked”) Athens. But Athens was able to strike back and defeat the Persian navy at Salamis in 479 B.C., and went on to conquer the Persian army the same year at the Battle of Plataea. Athens had won and became the dominant city-state.

The Athenian triumph in the Persian Wars (with the help of Sparta) in 466 B.C. and subsequent peace beginning in 450 B.C. catapulted Athens to a great power. It controlled the sea and commerce. Pericles (495–429 B.C.) rose to political prominence and rebuilt the Parthenon and other monuments in Athens. The city encouraged the creation of wealth, and it became the intellectual center of the world. Many of the most famous thinkers of the ancient world lived there. The Golden Age of Athens was the period when Pericles held power, also known as the Age of Pericles. Pericles expanded democracy in Athens by granting the right to hold government offices to all citizens and providing salaries for public service in government and on juries.

During this period, Athens decided to take advantage of the anti-Persia sentiment that existed throughout Greece, and formed the “Delian League” (477 B.C.). The alliance consisted of Athens and various other Greek city-states and Aegean towns. Athens quickly assumed a leadership position and began to control the various allies by imposing taxes and using the League’s budget to fund Athenian projects. During the Pericles Age, Athens began to aggressively expand and used bribes, trickery and often force to gain the cooperation of its allies. This sparked internal strife amongst the Greek city-states and much animosity towards what had become an Athenian empire.

=== The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.) ===

Military success breeds abuse of power and jealousy, which leads to war. The rivals Athens and Sparta began fighting each other in a lengthy series of battles known as the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.). In 431 B.C. a war erupted between Athens and Sparta and its allies. Athens controlled the sea but Sparta had a strong army, and the irresistible force had met the immovable object. The Spartan military is famous for its tremendous discipline to this day; boys were trained to be great soldiers beginning at age seven and serving the army from ages 20 to 60. After 27 years of fighting between Athens and Sparta, the Athenian leader Nicias negotiated the Peace of Nicias (421 B.C.).

But the peace lasted only a few years. Fighting resumed, and Sparta defeated the combined armies of Athens and her allies at Mantinea. In 415 a radical new leader of Athens, Alcibiades, convinced the Athenian Assembly to invade Syracuse, a Peloponnesian ally in Sicily. It was a total disaster. The end was near for Athens, which was weakened further by a plague that killed much of her population. Sparta then had a fleet to challenge Athens on the seas, and benefited from an extraordinary military leader named Lysander. He seized Hellespont to cut off Athens’ grain imports and threaten Athens with starvation. Athens sent all it had let to confront him, but failed at Aegospotami in 405 B.C.

Faced with bankruptcy, Athens gave up nearly everything just to attain peace. Athens lost her city walls and all of her possessions overseas. She also lost democracy as Sparta’s anti-democratic party took control. Sparta had won the Peloponnesian War.

Democracy rose up again in a few years and in 395 B.C. Sparta removed Lysander from office. In 387 Sparta lost the favor of public opinion by surrendering Greek cities (Ionia and Cyprus) to the enemy Persia, even though Greece had been beating Persia for a hundred years. When Sparta then tried to weaken its former ally Thebes, a battle broke out between them and Athens joined with Thebes to defeat Sparta.

=== Greek Knowledge ===

Ancient Greece advanced knowledge tremendously. The Greeks founded an Academy, considered to be the first university ever founded in the world. In a sense, homeschoolers today are emulating the Academy in starting their own educational system, developing logical skills and knowledge through informal classes and debates.

Socrates (469-399 B.C.) was the first great teacher at the Academy. He advocated the improvement of one’s soul, concentrating on ethics. He was constantly urging students to doubt and question things, and his “Socratic method” set the standard used in American law schools today, whereby the professor asks a series of questions of the students and they are expected to provide correct answers. He ultimately fell out of favor with the Athenian state for refusing to bow to its will, for questioning the actions of leaders during the Peloponnesian War, and because several of his students were implicated in bad deeds. He was charged with impiety and corruption of the youth and executed by being compelled to drink poison hemlock, thereby becoming the greatest pagan martyr in the history of the world. He left no writings.

His greatest student was Plato (428-347 B.C.). Born as a nobleman, he was fascinated with the power of reason and developed a philosophy based on reason rather than experience. He felt the essence of the world was abstract universals or “forms” or “ideas”, such as justice and truth and the Good. Plato was particularly interested in physics and mathematics. His writing style was in the form of dialogs. Early Christians made use of Plato’s work.

Plato’s greatest work was his book the Republic, which forms the foundation for the American republican system of government. The people typically do not vote directly on issues, but elect representatives who then cast hopefully more informed votes on legislation. In the ideal state of government imagined by Plato, philosophers ruled the country.

Plato’s finest student was Aristotle, perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time. He lived from 384-322 B.C., and wrote a treatise that is taught in the finest university philosophy departments to this day. Aristotle came to the Academy when he was 17 and remained there until the death of Plato twenty years later. Aristotle’s approach was the opposite of Plato: Aristotle thought experience was the key to knowledge, and embarked on the massive task of observing and compiling as much information as possible. In contrast to Plato’s interest in physics and math, Aristotle was fascinated by biology and classified over 500 animal species. He ultimately founded his own school, the Lyceum, and equipped it with specimens, libraries, maps and other accouterments found in modern universities. Aristotle defended the usefulness of slavery.

Another disciple of Socrates, Antisthenes, founded Cynicism, a philosophy which, not surprisingly, focuses on the negative aspects of life. The cynics believed the cares and pleasures of the natural world were negligible, and rejected materialism. Only the pursuit of virtue could bring happiness. They believed no divine force existed, and that only through extreme self-discipline could virtue and simplicity be attained and happiness found. Diogenes was the most famous Cynic.

Ancient Greece produced two great historians, Herodotus (hi-rah-duh-tus) (484-425 B.C.) and Thucydides (thew-ci-dah-deez) (d. 401 B.C.), who emphasized the importance of history. Herodotus’ History described the Persian Wars. Because he was the first to collect historical materials systematically, check their accuracy and present them in a logical manner with a vivid narrative, Herodutus is considered the “Father of History.” Thucydides wrote The History of the Peloponnesian War, which was the first full work of historical analysis. Thucydides blamed Athens’ loss on its failed expedition to Sicily, which wasted resources and hurt morale. He declared Athens’ loss to be deserved because of this mistake. A third historian was Xenephos (427-355 B.C.), a disciple of Socrates. Although incomparable to Thucydides and Herodotus, Xenephos was the primary historian of the last days of Greece’s freedom and picked up from where Thucydides left off (411 B.C.) in his detailed account, Hellenica.

The father of medicine was Hippocrates (460–377 B.C.). He issued the “Hippocratic Oath” that has been required of medical students around the world as a condition of graduation. It originally stated in part: “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.” People who profit from abortion today refuse to obey the Oath.

Archimedes (285 to 212 B.C.) lived in the Greek city-state of Syracuse and is considered to this day to have been one of the very best mathematicians of all time. He discovered “pi”, the ratio between the circumference of a circle to its diameter. He discovered the relationship between the surface and volume of a sphere and its circumscribing cylinder. He discovered “Archimedes’ principle” allegedly when he was sitting in a bathtub one day, recognizing that volume of a body can be measured by seeing how much the water rises when the body is submerged. He supposedly ran into town naked from his bathtub declaring “eureka!”, meaning “I have found it!” Archimedes also invented military devices useful for keeping the Roman soldiers out, although eventually they conquered his city-state and senselessly killed him. The “Archimedes screw” is a very clever way to use a large screw surrounded by a pipe to remove water from the bottom of a boat or basement.

Other mathematicians from the Greek empire are just as famous. Euclid (325–265 B.C.) lived in Hellenistic Alexandria, Egypt, and invented geometry. Pythagoras (582–507 B.C.) lived much earlier than Archimedes and Euclid, and was a philosopher, mathematician and teacher. He is often credited with proving the Pythagorean Theorem for calculating the length of a hypotenuse in a right triangle, but actually the Mesopotamians had it first. The Greek astronomer Aristarchus (310-230 B.C.) understood and taught that the earth revolved around the sun. Greek poetry and drama was tremendous too.

Ancient Greece also produced a great orator and statesman, Demosthenes (384-322 B.C.). As a young man, Demosthenes had very weak lungs and could not speak loudly or clearly. However, he did not let this defeat him; to improve his voice, Demosthenes would go to the ocean, fill his mouth with pebbles, and practice speaking loudly enough for his voice to be heard over the waves! He went on to give powerful political speeches-- known as the “Phillipics” - against Philip II of Macedon, once causing the crowd to shout, “Let us take up arms and march!” But in 338 B.C. Philip of Macedon completely conquered the Greeks at the battle of Chaeronea. Demosthenes’ life later ended in failure when an Athenian revolt against Macedon was unsuccessful.

The Greeks had great philosophical influence. Two main schools of philosophical thought from the Hellenistic Period were very influential: the Stoics and the Epicureans.

The Epicureans were founded by Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) in the late fourth century B.C. and did not believe in any divine power. They did not believe in human ability to know and understand absolute truth, instead teaching that only the senses could be trusted. They sought pleasure and inner peace, and their teachings later led to justification for excess and indulgence in whatever pleasures one desired.

In contrast, the Stoics — founded by Zeno (333-264 B.C.) in the early third century B.C. — sought to find a sense of divine justice. They de-emphasized emotion and feelings, teaching that both plain and pleasure should be disregarded. Instead, cool-headed reason and logic should be used at all times and self-indulgence denied.

Some historians have even speculated that Jesus spoke Greek and that the Apostles may have originally written the Gospels in that language. The traditional view is that Jesus and the Apostles spoke in Aramaic, the colloquial language of that region and time. Many of Jesus’ sayings are quoted directly in Aramaic, including Talitha cum, which means, “Little girl, get up!” (Mark 5:41). Also, Abba (“Father”; Mark 14:36; Gal.4:6; Rom.8:15); Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”; Mark 15:34); Cephas (“Peter”; John 1:42); Mammon (“Wealth”; Matt.6:24, RSV); Raca (“Fool”; Matt.5:22, RSV). Linguists can even pinpoint Jesus’ dialect to be western Aramaic associated with Galilee, rather than the Aramaic dialect spoken in Jerusalem.

But the powerful Greek language would have been useful to Jesus in teaching. Greek was in common use by Jewish people in Palestine, thanks in part to the conquest by Alexander the Great. Greek was even widely used in Jewish ossuaries to bury the dead. Commerce would have often occurred in Greek, and Jesus had been in business as a carpenter. He surely knew the language. Several of the key terms, such as Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees as “hypocrites”, is derived directly from Greek without any comparable term in Aramaic or Hebrew. Several of the Apostles have Greek names (e.g., Andrew and Philip). There has been no discovered book in the New Testament written in Aramaic or Hebrew that predates the Greek versions. For an interesting presentation of this Greek view, see: http://www.triumphpro.com/did_jesus_and_the_apostles_speak_greek.htm

Slavery existed widely in Greece, using both Greeks and non-Greeks (Russians and also African slaves bought from Egypt). Criminals and people who could not pay their debts were enslaved. The harshest treatment of slaves was of criminals put to work in the Athenian silver mines.

== The Hellenistic Age ==

The term “Hellenistic” means anything related to Greek history, culture or art after the life of a man named “Alexander the Great,” who lived from 356 to 323 B.C. and virtually conquered the world of his day. Alexander was not himself Greek, as he came from Macedonia (the region north of Athens, Corinth and Sparta). But he spread the Greek culture far and wide with his military conquests.

The kingdom of Macedon was formed in the 7th century and became Greek in culture and language by the 5th century, even though the Greeks considered Macedonians to be barbarians. Philip II of Macedon organized most of the cities into the League of Corinth, and promised to invade the dreaded enemy of Persia to liberate Greek cities there.

In ancient Greece the common military formation was the “phalanx”, which is Greek for “finger”, composed of a rectangular formation consisting of heavily armed infantry carrying spears and shields. Philip II was able to raise a well-trained phalanx in Macedonia at lower cost than the Greek city-states, and crushed them. But he was assassinated in 336 B.C., leaving his throne in the hands of his 20-year-old son, Alexander.

=== Alexander the Great ===

Long before his death, Philip II had arranged for Aristotle to tutor his son Alexander, and the wisdom Aristotle conferred made Alexander the greatest military leader of all time. Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.), as he is known, came closer to conquering the entire world than anyone else before or since. He mapped out his battles with logical precision and never lost a single one. He went to sleep at night with Aristotle’s marked-up copy of the Iliad, the great work of Greek literature, under his pillow. He treated his conquered peoples better than Aristotle would have, because Aristotle advised Alexander to treat them like animals. Alexander personally traveled over 22,000 miles with his troops and often knew the foreign terrain better than his enemies, even though they lived there. He defeated the most feared empires the world had known and expanded the Greek empire from Persia to Egypt to India, before dying from swamp fever (perhaps malaria) at the tender young age of 33. The world would never be the same again.

In a mere four years (334-331 B.C.), Alexander conquered the greatest empire in the history of the world so far: the Persian empire led by Persian king Darius III. The Persian armies were far superior to Alexander’s army, but Alexander was a brilliant, ferocious and unrelenting military leader. King Darius III even offered half of the Persian empire and his daughter’s hand in marriage to Alexander in exchange for peace. Alexander refused and proceeded to completely destroy the Persian army--capturing every one of its empire’s vast treasures. Darius was then assassinated by one of his own guards, and Alexander became ruler of Persia. Alexander did not stop there.

There are many fascinating stories told about Alexander the Great. Many consider him to have been the finest military mind ever. Illustrating his approach, legend tells the story of how Alexander confronted a huge “Gordian knot,” and was told that whoever could unravel the knot would rule the world. Alexander supposedly drew his sword and sliced the Gordian knot in two, and proceeded on his way.

He would surround himself with a staff of secretaries, philosophers and scientists, yet would also engage in drunken brawls to the point where he accidentally killed a friend who had once saved his life. Alexander enjoyed battle himself, and would often be wounded leading his soldiers. In one conflict, Alexander even employed underwater divers to defeat the enemy. Alexander never lost a single battle, and seemed to have unlimited energy, motivation, and determination. His work ethic was an inspiration to the world. His vast influence but premature death at 33 has led historians to compare him to Jesus Christ, though obviously they were very different from each other. Alexander lacked any disciples to carry on after his death.

Alexander the Great led the Greek empire to the corners of the world as known at that time. His death of a fever in his capital city of Babylon in 323 B.C. marked the end of his empire, but the beginning of the great Hellenistic influence. Seeds of Greek knowledge had been planted all around the world and were beginning to spring up everywhere. For centuries these seeds grew and influenced cultures from Persia to Egypt to Rome.

Alexander’s empire was too vast to survive his death, and his generals murdered the remaining members of his family. Athens and Sparta again became independent city-states until the Roman empire conquered them. However, what mattered was that the many thousands of Greeks who traveled with Alexander during his conquests brought their knowledge and culture to all corners of the ancient world except China. The great city of Alexandria, Egypt, shows its tribute to him by its name. Greek-speaking kingdoms had been established in Egypt, Syria and Iran, and the language became popular among the educated for trade in Palestine. The post-Alexander era is known as the Hellenistic Age (232-146 B.C.)

Taught in Greek, Christianity spread like wildfire throughout the Hellenistic world in the first century A.D. The Greek language, culture, and advances in knowledge had prepared the people well for Christianity to take root.

=== Greek Contributions ===

What can we thank Greece for today? For starters, the Greeks began the Olympics.

But we thank Ancient Greece for far more than that. Our system of laws and government is largely based on the Greek example, and in particular the concept of democratic participation in government. Trial by jury is from Greece, as is the concept of a defense attorney (Roman law lacked a defense attorney - note how Jesus did not have an attorney at His trial). Greece established democracy for the first time in history. Our language, too, is due to the Greek adoption of an alphabet. The Greeks invented the study of history, so this course is indebted to the Greeks!

Historians also credit ancient Greece for its tremendous achievements in the fields of science, philosophy and art. The concept of truth began to acquire meaning in ancient Greece, as did freedom and knowledge. The concept of moderation illustrated by the “Golden Mean” (whereby the whole is to the larger part as the larger part is to the smaller part, or (a+b)/a = a/b) and the design of ancient Greek buildings like the Parthenon using the Golden Mean in its dimensions were influential. The Parthenon (built in 438 B.C. to honor the goddess Athena) is impressive. It embodies the Golden Mean, which also occurs in many living creatures and has fascinated mathematicians ever since; for those interested in math, the Fibonacci sequence is a manifestation of the golden mean. A full-sized replica of the Parthenon sits in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Greek and Hebrew approaches to knowledge were very different. The Greeks emphasized spatial relationships, benefiting from the discovery of geometry by Euclid. The Hebrews rarely discuss spatial aspects of history in the Old Testament, and instead focus on their relationship with Yahweh that has no spatial elements. In addition, the Hebrews were inspired by one God, while the Hellenistic Greeks worshipped many gods and permitted many religions including Cynicism, Epicureanism and Stoicism.

Many historians credit the Greeks for “humanism”, by which they mean the Greek emphasis on reason, ethics and rational thinking rather than religion. But the Greeks did not choose to reject religion the way that modern humanists do. Instead, the Greeks advanced knowledge without exposure to Christianity.

Greek plays remain famous to this day. There were two types: the tragedy and the comedy. In a Greek tragedy, the main character has a flaw (such as arrogance) that causes him to fail. Playwrights of tragedies included Euripides (“Medea”) and Sophocles (“Antigone” and “Oedipus Rex”). The comedies consisted of humor and satire, and the leading playwright was Aristophanes (“Lysistrata”).

Not everything in Ancient Greece was great. It was polytheistic, worshipping many gods like Zeus and Hercules. The Greek gods were superhuman, but not divine. The Greek gods cared little about ethics or morality, and were the least influential aspect of the Greek culture. At most, this tradition of polytheism inspired some colorful literature and art. At its worst, it inspired silly rituals. For example, ceremonies known as “oracles” in which priests tried to predict the future by looking at the internal body parts of animal sacrifices—a process called “divination”.

The Greeks are not known for being very practical, but they did invent some useful devices. They are credited with inventing soap, the shower, central heating, the alarm clock (built by Plato to signal to his students that it is time to enter the Academy), the odometer, floating bridges, the lever, the anchor, bricks, the catapult and even chewing gum.

== Other Ancient Peoples ==

=== The Hittites ===

The Hittites were a northern Indo-European people who called themselves “Aryans” (like the Persians)—a term meaning “noble people”.

In1650 B.C., they were able to gain control of most of Mesopotamia largely because of their advanced warfare, including horse-drawn chariots. Under their rule, life in the Babylonian empire did not flourish artistically or culturally as it did under others’ rule.

In the Old Testament, the Hittites are mentioned more than 50 times, and are described as having descended from Noah’s great-grandson Heth (descended from Ham). Because no trace of this ancient civilization could be found for a long time, skeptics claimed it proved that the Bible was an unreliable source. However, astounding archeological discoveries in the 19th and 20th centuries proved that the Hittites existed and the finds did much to further the credibility of the Bible as a historical record.

=== Assyria ===

Assyria was a very ancient kingdom in northern Mesopotamia. Today that would be in northern Iraq.

It was dependent on Babylonia for a while, but rose to become an independent state in the 14th century B.C. Beginning with the 12th century it declined, only to reemerge as a kingdom again in the 8th century B.C. Under a sequence of powerful Assyrian kings of Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, Assyria controlled most of the Middle East from Egypt to the Persian Gulf.

The Assyrians were known for their cruelty and military skills, and more than a few references in the Bible lament their treatment of the Hebrews. The Old Testament mentions “Assyria” 119 times, including this typical verse: “The Lord was with him; wherever he went, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him.” (2 Kings 18:7 (NRS))

Ultimately, a Chaldean-Median coalition destroyed the Assyrians in 612-609 B.C.

=== The Chaldeans (also spelled as “Chaldaeans”) ===

The Chaldeans seized the Assyrian capital, Ninevah (from the story of Jonah), in 612 B.C., and destroyed it. They soon conquered all of Mesopotamia, as well as Judea and Syria. Although the Chaldeans only remained in power for fifty years, they were responsible for founding what is known as the “Neo-Babylonian empire”. Elaborate and beautiful palaces and buildings were constructed by the Chaldeans. The famous Hanging Gardens of Babylon were made during Chaldean rule.

The Chaldeans’ short reign is chronicled in the Biblical story of Daniel. As a teenager, Daniel was captured by the Chaldean army during its first attack on Jerusalem. While Daniel served under Nebuchadnezzar, one of only a few Chaldean kings, he interpreted dreams, witnessed the miraculous survival of Shadrach, Meschach and Aben-nego in the fiery furnace, and accurately predicted Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall. Under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Belshazzar, Daniel witnessed the writing on the wall, which he interpreted as a sign of Belshazzar’s imminent downfall. The very next day, the Persians invaded, killed Belshazzar, and took over the Babylonian empire.

=== Persia ===

Persia was the “Land of the Aryans,” and in 1935 the name Persia was changed simply to Iran. To this day oriental rugs from Iran are called “Persian rugs.” They are considered the best in the world and were banned as imports for a long time after Iranian students took Americans hostage in 1980.

The Aryans were nomadic people who migrated into India through the Kyber Pass around 1500 B.C. The language in ancient Persia was Avestan and in Northern India it was Sanskrit. All major European and Indian languages are considered related to it. Hebrew and Arabic are not.

After Darwin’s theory of evolution became popular in England and Germany, racists began to emerge who claimed that Aryans were superior. The worst of these were Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who insisted that Aryans were responsible for all of human progress, and that Jewish people were inferior because they did not descend from the Aryans (Hebrew did not descend from the Aryan language).

Persia’s glory days were from 550 to 331 B.C. It is during this time period that Persia is seen often in the Old Testament. When the Persians took over Babylon, Daniel served under Cyrus and Darius (who threw him into the lion’s den). The Persians are also seen in the Bible in the story of Esther, when King Xerxes I held what might be called a “Miss Persia” beauty contest. Esther, a beautiful Jewish girl, won the contest and would go on to save her people because of her remarkable courage.

The Persians controlled a vast amount of territory, including most of the Middle East, Turkey and a portion of Northern Africa--primarily under Cyrus the Great. Accordingly, the Persian empire was one of the first great empires of the world. They were unstoppable and greatly feared until Alexander the Great conquered them and far more.

After Alexander the Great died, Parthians (based in modern-day Iran) tried unsuccessfully to reestablish the Persian empire. But their past greatness was not achieved again. They could not withstand the Roman army, which conquered it in A.D. 226.

Afterwards, a Persian noble named Ardashir seized power by killing the Parthian king, and established the Sassanid empire along with the official state religion of Zoroastrianism, a polytheistic religion that had a creator (Ahuramazda) and a sun-god (Mithra). This religion was essentially limited to Persians. It made no attempt to convert others and it tolerated other religions in the region like Judaism. Its greatest king was Shapure II (A.D. 309-379), who beat back the weakening Romans and also extended Persian power towards China. This empire remained in control of Persia until Muslims took control of the region in A.D. 651.

=== The Celts ===

The Celts were the first ethnic group to become widespread in Europe. Using tribes rather than stable civilizations, the Celts began in central Europe and migrated west beginning in about 500 B.C. to the British Isles (especially Ireland) and also northwest France and portions of Spain. Their religion consisted of worshipping gods and goddesses, and their priests were called “druids”. They had no written language but often told myths and folktales. The Boston Celtics basketball team is named after the Celts.

=== Central and South America ===

In Central America (including present-day Mexico), Mesoamerica (“middle America”) developed a civilization known as the Olmec (“mother civilization”) beginning in about 1200 B.C., subsequent to more primitive societies in what is called the Archaic period (2000 B.C.). By then maize (corn) was a plentiful crop, and it was grown along the fertile rivers. Massive stone-hewn sculptures of warriors with helmets can be found in the tropical forests off the Gulf of Mexico in eastern Mexico, San Lorenzo and La Venta. The civilization lasted until 100 B.C., and used a numerical system having base 20 and a 365-day calendar that included 260 days of religious ritual. Religious ceremonies were prominent in this culture.

In South America, Peru was home to agriculture-based civilizations on the altiplano (highlands) of the Andes mountains, and also in coastal valleys. They had irrigation systems and built roads and bridges. They used the llama (a relative of the camel) as a beast of burden and created pottery and textiles using cotton. They lived in stone and adobe structures built perhaps between 3000 and 2000 B.C., and constructed large ceremonial centers beginning in 900 B.C., the most famous of which is called “Chavin de Huantar.”

In general, the Americas did not develop civilizations as advanced as ancient Europe and Asia. Hunting and gathering were easier in the Americas, and there was less reason to settle down into an agricultural society that could generate a surplus and enable workers to spend time on other tasks, such as building cities. The Americas did not have use of the wheel, the plow, glass, iron, steel or horses until brought over by European explorers.

=== Africa ===

Historians emphasize three peoples in Africa. The Bantu people spread their language through Africa by migrating to the east and south. They benefited from the iron-smelting technology. The Kush existed in North Africa and imitated the Egyptians. They also had iron smelting and traded for iron, especially at their capital city of Meroe. Finally, the Nok existed in West Africa and created terra cotta sculpture. They also had iron-smelting technology.

[[Category:History]]

Talk:Charles Darwin

2007-03-16T21:55:27Z

Alloco1: Darwin meant evolution to apply to humans.

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

----
===Religious Views===

I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== I created an article at another website ==

I created an article at another website:

[[Darwin's illness]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== A note on Darwin ==

He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans. If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced" so stop blaming him.

However, in the later book "the Descent of Man" he DID apply it to humans.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Soviet Union

2007-03-16T21:42:40Z

Alloco1: Gorbachev hoped to save the Soviet Government, not destroy it.

== Perhaps a little too simplistic ==

What about the Provisional Government? I fear they are forgotten to history. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:57, 3 March 2007 (EST)
*Was that Kerensky? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 3 March 2007 (EST)

The article seems to suggest that Gorbachev purposely brought down the Soviet government. The better statement would be that the government had lost so much credibility among its own people that he hoped that his policies of 'glastnost' and 'perestroika' would restore such credibilty. Instead, the greater openness let loose forces that undermined the government.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Scopes Trial

2007-03-16T20:54:50Z

Alloco1: Biased article

This is so atrociously biased that I need not say more than this.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 16:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2007-03-15T07:07:55Z

Alloco1: unattractive picture deliberately chosen?

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.