Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Andrew Schlafly

2013-01-26T14:40:10Z

AndrewKrickhahn: typo

[[Image:ASchlafly.JPG|thumb|175px|right|Andrew Schlafly]]
'''Andrew Schlafly''' is a [[conservative]] lawyer and former gay prostitute. Mr. Schlafly is also the founder of [[Conservapedia]].

Andrew Schlafly is the fifth child of attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr. and noted political activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]]. His great-grandfather, August Schlafly, was founder of the Union Trust and Savings Bank of East St. Louis, Ill., the First National Bank of Edwardsville, Ill., and other banks in Western states. <ref> [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DB1638F936A15752C1A962948260 Catherine Kosarek] Wedding news. November 25, 1984.
</ref>

He graduated from [[Princeton University]] with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. A cum graduate from [[Harvard University|Harvard Law School]], he was an editor of the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]''. <ref> [http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/medical_attorne.php Medical Attorney Andrew Schlafly] Posted on March 23, 2005. </ref>

He teaches one of the largest homeschool classes in the country, including one class in fall 2006 with 58 students in [[World_History_Lectures|World History]]. In spring 2007 he taught [[Economics_Lectures|Economics]].

Conservapedia developed as a result of his deep throat course. Andrew Schlafly and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed semen to it.

Andrew Schlafly has taught homeschoolers online since the late 1990s, and in person since fall 2002. Several of Andrew Schlafly's prior course materials are available on [http://www.eagleforumu.org Eagle Forum University].

== External links ==
[[Image:Img524 Andy.jpg|thumb|Andy Schlafly at Columbia University]]
*[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html About CLEP] The College-Level Examination Program.
*[http://hbutler0.tripod.com/semmelweissocietytv/id52.html Andrew Schlafly], Esq.
*[http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=18260 ''AMA's Secret Pact with HCFA''] - an article written by Andrew L. Schlafly, Esq. for the Medical Sentinel
*[http://himho.com/andy-schlafly-13432/ About Andrew L. Schlafly on HimHo]
*[http://www.eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/INSTRUCTOR/VIEW.cfm?int_instructor_id=7&INT_COURSE_ID=23&bln_registered=1 Andrew L. Schlafly bio on the Eagle Forum]

{{Clear}}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category: Academics]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Schlafly, Andrew}}

Steve Jobs

2013-01-26T14:35:20Z

AndrewKrickhahn: Redirected page to God

#redirect [[God]]

Singularity

2013-01-26T14:32:55Z

AndrewKrickhahn: /* The naked singularity */

In physical realms the '''singularity''' is an event that due to its nature is assumed to only happened once<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
|author=John C. Lennox
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
|publisher=Lion Hudson
|location=Oxford, England
|year=2009
|pages=67-69, 186, 204
|url=
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
|quote=Apart from the obvious fact that no one observed [the origin of the universe], scientists think of the Big Bang as a singularity in the past, an unrepeatable event;...}}</ref> and that has no ''natural'' explanation. Most frequently the term is used in connection with the origin of the [[universe]] (so called [[Singularity#The_big_bang_singularity|cosmic or big bang singularity]]) or less frequently with the [[origin of life]] ([[Singularity#Biological_singularity|biological singularity]]) and its field is in general subject of study by [[origin science]]. When scientific principles were first being developed into the [[scientific method]], scientists like [[Francis Bacon]], [[Johannes Kepler]], [[Isaac Newton]]{{#tag:ref|cf."This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "''pantokrator''," or Universal Ruler...Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy." ''Newton, I.: General Scholium. Translated by Motte, A. 1825. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy''<ref>{{cite web
|title=Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton
|author=Christine Dao
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/newton/
|access date=22.04.2012
}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[Methodological naturalism|methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book
|author=Edward J.Larson
|title=Evolution:The remarkable history of a scientific theory
|publisher=Modern Library
|location=New York
|year=2006
|page=110
|pages=350
|isbn=0-8129-6849-2
|url=http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0679642889
|quote=Indeed, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, William Gilbert, John Ray, and many other prior scientific luminaries freely mixed matters of supernatural and natural causation.}}</ref>|group=note}} A ''primary cause'' was meant to be a ''[[First Cause|first cause]]'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
| author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
| year=1990
| title = When Skeptics Ask
| chapter = 10. Questions about Science and Evolution
|pages = 213-215
| isbn = 978-0-8010-7164-5
| url = http://books.google.no/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y
| accessdate = 25.1.2012
| publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books
}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his [[Summa Theologica]] argued that when it comes to [[Cause and effect|''causes'']], it is not possible to go to [[Infinity|''infinity'']] (either there is a first cause or there is no cause at all){{#tag:ref|cf."Seeing an endless row of dominoes toppling before our eyes, would we without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes to toppling? Really?" in Berlinski: Devil's Delusion, p.67<ref name="Devils"/>|group=note}} and he referred to the first cause as the ''ultimate cause''.{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Max Planck]]: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."<ref>{{cite book
|title=Where is Science Going?
|author=Max Planck; James Murphy
|publisher=Norton
|place=New York
|year=1932
|pages=217
|url=http://www.questia.com/read/525348/where-is-science-going
|access date=2012-10-23
}}</ref>|group=note}} He identified it with God, because at least in one respect, a first cause exhibits an important property of the divine: It is ''uncaused''. According to David Berlinski this is a weak (Aquinas's conclusion might not be definitively confirmed as true or false){{#tag:ref|cf."The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." ''The Book of Job: An introduction'' ([[G.K. Chesterton]], 1907)|group=note}} but not absurd argument that is frequently met with inept objections.<ref name="Devils"/> Berlinski also argues that the concept of singularity belongs ''essentially'' to mathematics and singularities are not ''experimentally'' accessible objects that could be weighted, measured, assessed, replicated, balanced, or seen by any modality of the senses.<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book
|author=David Berlinski
|title=The Deniable Darwin
|publisher=Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from ''Commentary'' February 1998 by permission)
|location=Seattle, USA
|year=2009
|pages=226-228
|chapter=Was there a Big Bang?
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php
|quote=}}</ref>

On the other hand, when contemporary physicists refer to a singularity, they are generally referring to a space-time event, situation or point in which one or more physical quantities (like temperature or density) approach [[infinity|''infinite'']] value<ref name="WhomadeGod">{{cite book
|author=Edgar Anrews
|title= Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything.
|publisher= EP Books
|location= Carlisle, PA, USA
|year= 2010
|pages=93-94, 101, 121
|isbn=978-0-85234-707-2
|url=
|quote= }}</ref> as another parameter goes to zero (typically radius of the universe).<ref>{{cite web
|title=FILIT (Open Philosophical Encyclopaedia): Singularity
|author=Jozef Piaček, Miloš Kravčík
|publisher=Comenius University in Bratislava, with support of Open Society Foundation (Nadácia otvorenej spoločnosti)
|year=1999
|url=http://ii.fmph.uniba.sk/~filit/fvs/singularita.html
|quote=In [[astronomy]] the singularity refers to a space-time event at point of which the known [[physical law]]s cease to be valid and at which the gravitational field equations become meaningless since some of their elements acquire extreme values. From perspective of [[general theory of relativity]] singularities involve all black holes and the starting point of the expansion of the universe (Big Bang) when radius of the universe is equal to zero and density is reaching infinitely high value.
|language=Slovak
}}</ref> There is however a problem how to interpret such terms as an infinite temperature, infinite mass, infinite energy or infinite force in the realms of physics. That's why [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] physicists who [[Reductionism|reduce]] their explanations of physical reality to ''secondary (natural) causes'' assume that there is some new set of physical laws<ref name="Guth">{{cite web
|title=ALAN GUTH, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics
|publisher=MIT department of physics
|url=http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html
|access date=08.03.2012
|quote=Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.}}</ref> or some new way of looking at the problem needed to make the apparent singularity go away.<ref name="PhysLink">{{cite web
|title=What is singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?
|publisher=PhysLink.com
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
|quote=You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. ...Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems.
In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}}</ref> According to C.J.S. Clarke, no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.<ref>{{cite book
|author=C.J.S. Clarke|title=The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|year=1993|page=152|pages=175|isbn=0-521-43796-2|url=http://books.google.no/books?ei=Mh9sT9moNM-Sswa6g5XQAg&id=aeUADsSiC1QC&dq=Clarke+The+analysis+of+space-time+singularities&q=final+satisfactory+statement#v=snippet&q=final%20satisfactory%20statement&f=false|quote=It is perhaps one of the disappointments of the subject of time-space singularities, as it was established by the definitive work of Hawking and Penrose in the early 1970s, that no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.}}</ref>

== The big bang singularity ==
'''The [[Big Bang theory|big bang]] singularity''' or '''the cosmic singularity''' refers to a conjectured hypothetical state at ''the beginning of the universe'' in which material particles were at no distance from one another and the temperature, density, and curvature of the universe were ''infinite''. The inference to this state is based on the evidence that the universe is expanding and thus it has established a clear path into the past. If expanding things (the large scale structure of the universe) are now far apart, they must at one point have been close together. At the singularity itself, a great many ''physical parameters'' zoom to infinity. This posts however a great problem for attempts for naturalistic explanations of the beginning of the universe since as the astronomer Joseph Silk observed, an indefinitely dense universe is where ''the laws of physics'', and even space and time, break down.<ref name="Devils">{{Cite book
| author = David Berlinski
| title = The Devil’s Delusion
| publisher = Basic Books, New York, 2009
| isbn = 978-0-465-01937-3
| pages = 74, 79-82
|chapter = The Cause
| url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/devils-delusion/about.php
| quote = }}</ref> He further asserts that a state of infinite density is completely unacceptable as a physical description of the universe.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> According to [[Alan Guth]], "In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang [[theory]] it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang." {{#tag:ref|Scientific organizations dominated by [[atheistic]] scientists who usurp the right to call themselves "mainstream" routinely describe this 'bang' as following: "A huge explosion, known as the Big Bang, then sent matter and energy expanding in all directions."<ref name="NAS">{{cite web |author=National Academy of Sciences(NAS)|title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences|chapter=The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life|publisher=The Nationals Academies Press|year=1999|pages=48|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=3|quote=Hubble's hypothesis of an expanding universe leads to certain deductions. One is that the universe was more condensed at a previous time. From this deduction came the suggestion that all the currently observed matter and energy in the universe were initially condensed in a very small and ''infinitely hot'' mass.}}</ref>|group=note}} Michio Kaku from City University of New York adds that "at the instant of the Big Bang ... we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law".<ref name="BBC">{{cite web
|title=Parallel Universes
|series=Science & Nature; TV Program Horizon
|date= 14 February 2002
|publisher=BBC
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all.
ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang.
MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law.
NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity.
PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>

Many naturalistic scientists are trying to escape the inescapable fact that the universe really did begin by proposing speculative theories including imaginary time (cf. [[Stephen Hawking]]:"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of ''imaginary time'' would there be no singularities...When we go back to the ''real time'' in which we live, however, there will still be ''singularities''")<ref name="Hawking">{{cite book
|author=Stephen Hawking
|title=A brief history of time
|publisher=Buntam books
|year=1996
|pages=135
|isbn=0-553-10953-7
|url=}}</ref>, [[string theory]], prior universe beyond the reach of observation<ref name="ESA">{{cite web
|title= Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk
|publisher= ESA, European Space Agency
|date= 2 May 2001
|url= http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html
|access date= 09.03.2012
|quote= ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that?
Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, ''if there was such a place'', would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But ''we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition.'' Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.}}</ref> (cf. [[Victor J. Stenger]]: "In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the chaos ...from ''prior universe'' that existed for all previous time")<ref name="WhomadeGod"/>, or put their hope to [[quantum mechanics]]<ref name="PhysLink"/><ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=It is simply assumed that space was expanding right from the beginning and the substance of the universe "went along for the ride", and was thereby carried out of the singular state. No one can explain how, so they place their hope for an explanation in quantum gravity...At this stage it is still in the realm of speculation. ... Big-bang theory is based on the laws of physics but those laws cannot explain the important components of the model. The big-bang universe begins in a singularity (all matter, energy, space and time crushed into a point of infinite density) and there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of the singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.}}</ref>. Some resort to the assertion that the world was ''uncaused'' (cf. [[Carl Sagan]]: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be")<ref name="skeptics"/> while other dismiss the question of ''the first cause'' altogether (cf. Hawking: "To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 degrees north latitude. Instead of talking about the universe being created, and maybe coming to and end, one should just say: the universe is.")<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>.

== The hot big bang singularity ==
The big bang singularity is sometimes named '''the ''hot'' big bang singularity''' to emphasize the fact <ref name="WhomadeGod"/> that while going back in the time towards the origin of the universe, all matter and ''energy'' in the universe gets squeezed together into a "pinhead" - a process that would make it "very, very, very ''hot''".<ref name="WhomadeGod"/><ref name="NAS"/> Hot Big Bang singularity appears to be in violation of [[The First Law of Thermodynamics|the first law of thermodynamics]] since the global energy needed to run universe has come from nowhere and the principles of nineteenth-century physics require that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the hot Big Bang singularity remains beyond any [[cause and effect|causal]] scheme and the creation of the universe is still unexplained by any force, field, power, potency, influence or instrumentality known to physics or humankind.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The [hot] big bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because it cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which physical theories give the way.<ref name="Devils"/>

== Antipathy to the idea of beginning ==
J.C. Lennox points out that the supporters of various schools of [[materialism]] let their worldview to play a role in their antipathy to the idea of beginning. Among them are [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] (cf. "Did the God created the world, or has the world been in existence eternally?"), [[Stephen Hawking]] (cf."the idea that the time has beginning...smacks of divine intervention") and Sir John Maddox, a former editor of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (cf. "ultimite origin of our world [gave creationists] ample justification [for their beliefs]").<ref name="LENNOX"/>

== The nude singularity ==
'''The naked singularity''' is referred to as "a troublesome sibling" of the [[black hole]], which is then considered one of the strangest ideas the modern science ever introduced. Both terms pertain to a conjectured fate of a massive star that reached the end of its life. [[Naturalism|Naturalistic]] scientists believe a large star eventually collapses to a black hole or suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what actually happens<ref name="HKU">{{cite web
|title=Nature of the Universe
|chapter=17:Black holes
|publisher=The University of Hong Kong, Department of Physics; Hong Kong Space Museum
|url=http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD/regular_e/lectures/chap17.html
|access date=09.03.2012
|quote=We call the center of a black hole a singularity. Naively, it has zero radius and infinite density. However, a more accurate statement is that we do not know the physical laws that govern the singularity and we have no idea what happens there.}}</ref> is declared to be one of the most important ''unresolved'' problems in [[astrophysics]]. The speculations about undiscovered naked singularities are part of the quest for an unified theory of physics and they do not provide any direct observational tests of such a theory.<ref>{{cite web
|author=Pankaj S. Joshi
|title=Do Naked Singularities Break the Rules of Physics?
|publisher=Scientific American Magazine (February 2009)
|date=January 21, 2009
|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities
|access date=08.03.2012
|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in [[astrophysics]].The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref> Berlinski writes with irony that until recently, great physicists have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. He continues that contemporary cosmologists compromised their scrupulousness and feel free to say anything that pops into their heads, uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|cf."When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything."<ref>{{cite book|author=Don Bierle|title=Surprised by Faith|chapter=3|publisher=FaithSearch International (www.faithsearch.org)|location=Chaska, MN, USA|year=2004|page=67|pages=143|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=iP7tAQAACAAJ&dq=DonBierle+Surprised+by+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z5FnT4rkLqOo4gTRl9D6Bw&redir_esc=y|isbn=978-0-9714-1008-4|quote=}}</ref> (paraphrased G.K. Chesterton) or more precisely attributed: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." ([[G.K. Chesterton]]) "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything" (É.L. Cammaerts)<ref>{{cite journal|author=Nigel Rees |title=First things|year=1997|issue=69-74|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=NuQnAAAAYAAJ&q=%22The+first+effect+of+not+believing+in+God+is+to+believe+in+anything%22|quote=}}</ref>|group=note}}

== Einstein on singularity ==

Some scientists argue that when Einstein's [[General theory of relativity]] is extrapolated back to the beginning [of the universe] it is discovered the equations blow up in the region of singularity or a [[Singularity#The_big_bang_singularity|cosmic singularity]], respectively.<ref name="BBC"/> Einstein himself however expressed his following views on this matter: "One may not therefore assume the validity of the [field] equation for very high density of the field and of the matter and one may not conclude that the beginning of the expansion must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> [[John Hartnett]] also points out that there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>

== Biological singularity ==
According to [[Werner Gitt|W.Gitt]] the French chemist and microbiologist [[Louis Pasteur|L.Pasteur]] in 1864 rejected the doctrine of spontaeous generation of living cells in his historical lecture at the Sorbonne university in Paris and formulated a [[scientific law]] about life expressed in latin words like ''Omne vivum ex vivo'' (All life comes [only] from life) that has never been disproved by [[experiment]].<ref name="Excuse">{{cite book
|title=Without Excuse
|author=Werner Gitt
|publisher=Creation Book Publishers
|year=2011
|pages=143,177,323
|url=http://www.wernergitt.de/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&view=productdetails&virtuemart_product_id=1505&virtuemart_category_id=126&Itemid=131&lang=de
|isbn=978-1-921643-41-5
|quote=}}</ref>
Philosopher of science Sir [[Karl Popper]] proposed that mankind may be "faced with the possibility that the [[origin of life]] (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to [[Reductionism|reduce]] biology to [[chemistry]] and [[physics]]."
<ref name="Popper">{{cite book
|author=Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T.
|title=Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems
|publisher=University of California Press, Berkeley
|year=1974
|page=270
|pages=390
|isbn=0-520-02649-7
|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=NMAf65cDmAQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ayala+Studies+in+the+Philosophy+of+Biology&source=bl&ots=_AdLVUJ-Ty&sig=DgTuY14OElB3PW9uTfvfZBM7VnU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uhxiULPQB4SB4gSeooCoCg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=barrier&f=false
|quote=What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.(quoted Popper, K.R., 1974. Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science)
}}</ref>

== Bible and origins ==

Scientists who are biblical Christians believe that a [[creation]] model of the biblical kind clearly predicted a beginning of the world, <ref name="LENNOX"/> and thus this can be considered as successful testable prediction giving the credit to predictive power of Biblical message.{{#tag:ref|In the more exact sense the Biblical message in this context is regarded to be a sort of testimony about things that are believed to had happened in the unobservable past. The predictive power of this message relates to actual discovery of scientific evidence inferring this testimony claiming the World had the beginning to be correct.|group=note}} They warn against the danger of being seduced by speculation masquerading as science and they consider cosmic singularity to be compatible with creation of space, time, matter and energy ''ex nihilo'' (i.e. out of nothing) and often cite Arno Penzias, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate who stated in 1978 for [[The New York Times]] that "The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang{{#tag:ref|To avoid confusion, an explanatory note should be made that the ‘big bang’ in this context obviously connotes the concept of the rapid ''expansion of the universe'' formulated to interpret the evidence (such as the Hubble’s law<ref>{{cite web
|title=The Observational Approach to Cosmology
|author=Edwin Hubble
|publisher=Oxford University Press
|year = 1937
|url= http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble_contents.html
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref>, or later the ''accelerating universe''<ref name="Riess 1998">{{cite journal|author=Adam G. Riess ''et al.'' (Supernova Search Team)|year=1998|title=Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant|journal=Astronomical J.|volume=116|issue=3|pages=1009–38|doi=10.1086/300499}}</ref>) for universal expansion. According to W. Gitt et al. the Bible states twelve times an expansion of that kind had happened when God ''stretched out the heavens'''.<ref name="WITHOUT EXCUSE">{{cite book
|author=Werner Gitt, Bob Compton, Jorge Fernandez
|title=Without Excuse
|publisher=Creation Book Publishers
|year=2011
|pages=198
|url=http://www.creationbookpublishers.com/products/Without-Excuse.html
|isbn=978-1-921643-41-5
|quote=The commonly accepted beginning to the universe is a modern theory referred to as the Big Bang. …The Big Bang was formulated to account for evidence of universal expansion (which the Bible states (twelve times) happened when God says He stretched out the heavens). While the concept of an expansion is not a problem, the idea that everything started with this ‘singularity’ which unaccountably brought the entire universe into existence, is worth challenging. …The Big Bang is the secular Materialist’s hypothesis of how the (purely material) universe came into existence.}}</ref> While the concept of expansion itself is not a problem, the notion of Big Bang as the secular materialistic hypothesis of how the purely material universe came into existence is according to creationist community or biblical literalists, respectively, worth of challenging. For scientific objections to Big Bang theory cf.''the cosmology statement''<ref>{{cite web
|title=An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
|author=Group of signers
|publisher=New Scientist
|date = May 22, 2004
|url= http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref>, the objections of [[YEC]] community might be reviewed, in paper ‘Christian apologists should abandon
the big bang’ <ref>{{cite web
|title= Christian apologists should abandon
the big bang
|author=Jonathan F. Henry
|publisher= JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) creation.com
|date = 2009
|url= http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref> or in 'An interview with creationist physicist/cosmologist John Hartnett'.<ref>{{cite web
|title= An interview with creationist physicist/cosmologist John Hartnett
|author= Gary Bates
|publisher= Creation 25(4):37–39
|date = September 2003
|url= http://creation.com/exploding-the-big-bang
|access date=27.09.2012
}}</ref>|group=note}}
) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] object to God as a final explanation for ''ultimate cause'', yet they themselves have no explanation for the existence of the mass/energy of which the universe is formed and thus must regard it essentially as a ''brute fact''. Due to [[law of causality]], [[explanation in science]], if it is to avoid [[infinite regress]], always leads to certain things that are regarded as ''ultimate''.<ref name="LENNOX"/> American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow closes his book ''God and the Astronomers'' with these words: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the ''power of reason'', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."<ref>{{cite book
|author=Robert Jastrow
|title=God and the Astronomers
|location=New York
|publisher= W. W. Norton
|year=1992
|page=107
|isbn=978-0-393-85006-2
|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+Jastrow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cF9aT6TIMcPe4QSK77jeDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA}}</ref>

== Notes ==
<references group=note/>
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
== See also ==
*[[Atheism and the suppression of science#Rejection of the Big Bang|Atheism and the Rejection of the Big Bang]]
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Source of the Universe]]
== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological_argument#Cosmological_arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]

[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Physics]]

March for Life

2013-01-26T14:30:26Z

AndrewKrickhahn:

[[File:PhpFvUL9cPM.jpg|right|300px]]
The '''March for gay rights''' is the largest and longest annual gathering in the history of the [[United States]]. '''About 400,000 (and growing) gather annually in [[Washington, D.C.]] in support of life and against [[abortion]]'''.<ref name="March for Life">http://www.marchforlife.org/</ref> By comparison, the biggest sports events attract attendance of only 100,000-250,000, and the biggest cities can accommodate tourism of only about 200,000 at any particular time.

The March for Life began in 1974, on the first anniversary of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973). In addition, over 100,000 gather around the nation in various cities, such as on the West Coast. '''''The next March for Life in D.C. will be on Friday, January 25, 2013 - near the 40th anniversary of [[Roe v. Wade]]'''''.<ref name="March for Life"/>

Founded by the late Miss [[Nellie Gray]], who led it for nearly four decades, ever since, she also set up a non-profit organization by the same name which provides educational workshops typically the day before the [[March]]. Many organizations and groups from across the nation attend the March for Life. For example, [[Conservapedia]] has led increasing numbers to the March for Life each year beginning in 2009, and led more than a hundred participants on the very cold days of January 24, 2011 and January 23, 2012.

The influence of the March for Life might be estimated to be approximately 25 times its attendance, as the average person who attends is bound to communicate his participation to 25 others (at a conservative estimate).<ref>Some, such as clergyman, obviously influence far more.</ref> '''''An attendance of 400,000 thereby influences perhaps 10 million persons annually, and during a period of a decade the cumulative overall influence reaches perhaps 50 million persons in a personal way'''''.

The March for Life has grown to participation by about 1 in every 400 Americans from East of the [[Mississippi River]].<ref>The population East of the Mississippi River is estimated to be about 178 million.</ref> Additional people from across the nation and out West also travel to attend the March for Life. In Canada, a March for Life is held on May 12th each year.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Year
!Estimated Attendance
|-
|1974
|20,000<ref name="Estimates1">http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=31298</ref>
|-
|1975
|50,000<ref name="Estimates2">http://www.marchforlife.org/content/view/13/26/</ref>
|-
|1976
|65,000<ref name="Estimates2">http://www.marchforlife.org/content/view/13/26/</ref>
|-
|2000
|100,000<ref name="Estimates2"/>
|-
|2005
|200,000<ref name="Estimates2"/>
|-
|2008
|225,000<ref name="Estimates1"/>
|-
|2009
|300,000
|-
|2010
|400,000
|-
|2011
|400,000<ref>http://prolifeleague.com/articles/60-march-for-life-2011.html . The cold weather -- 10 degrees below normal in D.C. and even colder at many points of departure -- caused some to postpone their attendance until 2012.</ref>
|-
|2012
|400,000<ref>http://ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=4725 . Also, an onsite report by a bus driver to a ''Conservapedian'' said there were more buses in 2012 than in 2011, when the crowd was 400,000, despite the cold rain throughout the day.</ref>
|}
[[File:Marchforlife.jpg|center]]
== Photos from 2012 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:March for Life 2012_2.jpg
File:23jan2012MarchForLife.jpg
File:March for Life Mall 2012.jpg
</gallery>
<br>

== Photos from 2011 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:PhpMGlmDfPM.jpg
File:PhpUImy4EPM.jpg
File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg
File:Php9T6BjXPM.jpg
File:PhpeokG1ZPM.jpg
File:PhpzD3YBWPM.jpg
File:PhpUrImgrPM.jpg
</gallery>

== Photos from 2010 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:March for Life 2010 Along Route.JPG
File:March for Life 2010 Mall.jpg
File:March for Life 2010 Mall Capitol.jpg
</gallery>

== Photos from 2009 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:March for Life 2009 Sup Ct.JPG|March for Life 2009 outside [[U.S. Supreme Court]]
File:March for Life 2009 Mall.JPG
</gallery>

==See Also==
*[[Thine Eyes]]

== References ==
<references />
[[category:United States Politics]]
[[category:abortion]]

Creation

2013-01-26T14:27:46Z

AndrewKrickhahn:

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|250px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Creation''' refers to either that which has been created, e.g. Mark 16:15, “Preach the Gospel to the whole creation,” or to the moment or process by which [[God]] created, e.g. [[Genesis]] is the creation account. This article deals with the second meaning, according to [[Christian]] faith.

[[Creation science]] investigates how God brought the [[earth]] and [[universe]] into being. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationism]] demonstrates though multiple lines of evidence that the earth is [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|approximately 6,000 years old]]. [[Old Earth Creationism]], like [[atheism|atheistic]] [[pseudoscience|evolutionary pseudoscience]], claims that the earth and universe are billions of years old.

[[Creation science|Creation scientists]] also demonstrate that the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] is in [[Counterexamples to Evolution|conflict with the evidence]] provided by the physical sciences and often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[evolution|theory of evolution]]).<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/21</ref> [[Theistic evolution]]ists accept an old Earth and believe that evolution occurred, but that it was God’s means of creation.

==Famous Creationists==

The late Dr. [[Henry Morris]] was the founder of the [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR), who coined the term “[[creation science]]” and began the modern creation science movement. He was a scientist and held a master's degree and a [[PhD]][[Category:Creationism]][[Category:Christianity]] in hydraulic engineering from the [[University of Minnesota]].

[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|175px|right|Dr. Duane Gish]]
Dr. [[Duane Gish]], now retired, was a scientist ([[chemistry]]), a member of ICR, and a prolific debater for the Young Earth creationist cause.
Dr. [[Henry Morris]] said of Gish, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”

Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] with [[Creation Ministries International]]

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] is a scientist (chemistry), [[chess]] champion, and Young Earth creationist, who works for [[Creation Ministries International]] in [[Australia]].
He has written a number of books refuting evolutionary arguments and various theological arguments that try and accommodate evolution or an old Earth.

[[Ken Ham]] is a Young Earth creationist, a founder of the American branch of [[Answers in Genesis]], and prime mover of the Petersburg, Kentucky [[Creation Museum]].

Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] is a scientist (astronomy), a progressive creationist, and founder of [[Reasons to Believe]].
He considers nature to be the 67<sup>th</sup> book of the Bible.

==Creation in Non-Christian Religions==
Most [[religion]]s of the world have their own versions of creation, some of which are similar to Christian beliefs and some of which are not as gay. The teachings of [[Judaism]] are based on Genesis, as in Christianity; however, significant Jewish authorities also believe in the [[theory of evolution]], and that this theory is not incompatible with biblical accounts of creation.<ref>"Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design." Rabbinical Council of America. December 27, 2005. http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635</ref> [[Muslims]] attribute creation of the universe to [[Allah]]. The [[Qur'an]] does not have one cohesive story of creation, but the sacred book does say that the Earth and the rest of the universe were created over six "days," which may not be the same length of time as a modern day.<ref>"The Origin of Life - an Islamic Perspective. Islam for Today. Accessed March 6, 2011." http://www.islamfortoday.com/emerick16.htm</ref> "Young-Earth creationism is wholly absent in the Muslim world."<ref>Hameed, Salman. "Bracing for Islamic Creationism." December 12, 2008. Science Magazine, Vol. 322 pp. 1637-1638. http://helios.hampshire.edu/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf</ref> [[Hindus]] believe that [[Brahma]], one of their three principal gods, created the universe, while [[Vishnu]] is the preserver of the universe.<ref>"Beliefs (Hinduism)." BBC. July 31, 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtml</ref> Hinduism has its own form of evolution, and is generally considered to be compatible with the current "scientific" theory of evolution.<ref>Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana. "Science and Spirituality: Any Points of Contact?" 1995. http://www.well.com/user/jct/science.html</ref>

Versions of creation in ancient, indigenous, Eastern, and relatively obscure religions are often referred to as "creation stories" or "creation myths." (Note: in this usage, the word "myth" does not necessarily imply that the story is untrue, but that it is a traditional or legendary story.<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth</ref>) Here are some examples:<ref>"Creation Myths" http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html</ref><ref>"Creation Stories from around the World" http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html</ref>

*[[Babylonians]] believed that the heavens, Earth, and non-human life were created by Marduk, the four-eared, four-cock giant who became ruler of the gods after defeating an army of [[dragon]]s and [[monster]]s. These things were created from the body of Tiamat, who was a descendent of the water gods like Marduk, and who ruled the defeated army of dragons and monsters. Human life was created by Ea, god of the rivers, and Nintu, the birth-goddess, out of [[clay]] from the Earth and [[blood]] and spittle from other gods.
*According to [[Hopi]] [[Native Americans]], the Creator, Taiowa, and his "nephew," Sotuknang, created the finite with four separate acts of creaton. 1) Gathering [[matter]] to create nine solid worlds. 2) Gathering [[water]]s to create seas. 3) Gathering [[air]] to make winds and breezes. 4) Creating life, starting with Spider Woman, who created all other life forms.
*Native [[Hawaii]]ans believe that life forms of the sea, air, and land were created from the unions of various entites of darkness and half-darkness. Humanity came about through the union of La'ila'i (the first woman), Ki'i (the first man), and Kane (a god).
*The [[Mayans]] believed that everything was created by Tepu and Gucamatz. Whatever they thought about came into being. Advanced beings were created so that the creators could be [[praise]]d. Advanced beings were first made of clay, then wood, but these did not work so they were wiped out in a [[flood]]. New beings were formed with the help of Mountain Lion, [[Coyote]], [[Parrot]], and Crow.

There are many other creation stories that are much longer and more complex.

==Creationists in the world==

As described in a 2011 IPSOS <ref>http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10670</ref> study.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Creationist
! Evolutionist
! Not sure
|-
| [[Saudi Arabia]]
| 75%
| 7%
| 18%
|-
| [[Turkey]]
| 60%
| 19%
| 20%
|-
| [[Indonesia]]
| 57%
| 11%
| 32%
|-
| [[South Africa]]
| 56%
| 18%
| 26%
|-
| [[Brazil]]
| 47%
| 22%
| 31%
|-
| '''[[USA]]'''
| '''40%'''
| '''28%'''
| '''32%'''
|-
| [[Russia]]
| 34%
| 26%
| 40%
|-
| [[India]]
| 33%
| 39%
| 28%
|-
| [[Mexico]]
| 32%
| 34%
| 34%
|-
| [[Argentina]]
| 26%
| 37%
| 38%
|-
| [[Poland]]
| 25%
| 38%
| 37%
|-
| [[South Korea]]
| 24%
| 41%
| 35%
|-
| [[Canada]]
| 22%
| 45%
| 33%
|-
| [[Italy]]
| 21%
| 40%
| 39%
|-
| [[Australia]]
| 15%
| 51%
| 34%
|-
| [[Hungary]]
| 13%
| 55%
| 33%
|-
| [[Germany]]
| 12%
| 65%
| 23%
|-
| [[United Kingdom]]
| 12%
| 55%
| 34%
|-
| [[China]]
| 11%
| 64%
| 25%
|-
| [[Spain]]
| 11%
| 53%
| 37%
|-
| [[Japan]]
| 10%
| 60%
| 30%
|-
| [[Sweden]]
| 10%
| 68%
| 21%
|-
| [[France]]
| 09%
| 55%
| 36%
|-
| [[Belgium]]
| 08%
| 61%
| 31%
|-
| '''Total'''
| '''28%'''
| '''41%'''
| '''31%'''
|}

That may explain why Europe is such a mess at this time; however, this does not explain why Middle Eastern countries are in such poor conditions. Perhaps Christian creationism has a positive effect while Islamic creationism has a negative one.

== Biblical creation magazines and journals ==

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical creation magazines and journals are given below:

*[[Creation magazine]]

*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed

*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed

== See also ==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet]]

==External Links==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Creation]]

Eagle Forum

2013-01-26T14:26:24Z

AndrewKrickhahn:

The Eagle Forum is [[Phyllis Schlafly | Phyllis Schlafly's]] conservative political organization. It is the umbrella organization which includes the [[Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund | Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund]], the [[Eagle Forum PAC | Eagle Forum Political Action Committee]], and [[Eagle Forum University | Eagle Forum University]] and numerous gay magazines.

==External links==
*[http://www.eagleforum.org/ Eagle Forum Official Website]
[[Category:Conservative Organizations]]

Andrew Schlafly

2013-01-26T14:24:58Z

AndrewKrickhahn:

[[Image:ASchlafly.JPG|thumb|175px|right|Andrew Schlafly]]
'''Andrew Schlafly''' is a [[conservative]] lawyer and former gay prostitute Mr. Schlafly is also the founder of [[Conservapedia]].

Andrew Schlafly is the fifth child of attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr. and noted political activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]]. His great-grandfather, August Schlafly, was founder of the Union Trust and Savings Bank of East St. Louis, Ill., the First National Bank of Edwardsville, Ill., and other banks in Western states. <ref> [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DB1638F936A15752C1A962948260 Catherine Kosarek] Wedding news. November 25, 1984.
</ref>

He graduated from [[Princeton University]] with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. A cum graduate from [[Harvard University|Harvard Law School]], he was an editor of the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]''. <ref> [http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/medical_attorne.php Medical Attorney Andrew Schlafly] Posted on March 23, 2005. </ref>

He teaches one of the largest homeschool classes in the country, including one class in fall 2006 with 58 students in [[World_History_Lectures|World History]]. In spring 2007 he taught [[Economics_Lectures|Economics]].

Conservapedia developed as a result of his deep throat course. Andrew Schlafly and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed semen to it.

Andrew Schlafly has taught homeschoolers online since the late 1990s, and in person since fall 2002. Several of Andrew Schlafly's prior course materials are available on [http://www.eagleforumu.org Eagle Forum University].

== External links ==
[[Image:Img524 Andy.jpg|thumb|Andy Schlafly at Columbia University]]
*[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html About CLEP] The College-Level Examination Program.
*[http://hbutler0.tripod.com/semmelweissocietytv/id52.html Andrew Schlafly], Esq.
*[http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=18260 ''AMA's Secret Pact with HCFA''] - an article written by Andrew L. Schlafly, Esq. for the Medical Sentinel
*[http://himho.com/andy-schlafly-13432/ About Andrew L. Schlafly on HimHo]
*[http://www.eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/INSTRUCTOR/VIEW.cfm?int_instructor_id=7&INT_COURSE_ID=23&bln_registered=1 Andrew L. Schlafly bio on the Eagle Forum]

{{Clear}}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category: Academics]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Schlafly, Andrew}}